Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
TECH GIANT APPLE has released a statement, reiterating its commitment to keeping its customers’ information private.
The company said it wanted to share how it handles government requests for information in the wake of the surveillance scandal and that the federal authorities granted it permission to do so.
Apple said it wanted to report the figures “in the interest of transparency”.
From 1 December 2012 to 31 May 2013, Apple received between 4,000 and 5,000 US law enforcement requests for customer data.
“Between 9,000 and 10,000 accounts or devices were specified in those requests, which came from federal, state and local authorities and included both criminal investigations and national security matters,” the statement outlined.
The most common requests came from police investigating robberies and other crimes, authorities searching for missing children, search teams trying to locate a patient with Alzheimer’s disease and others trying to prevent suicides.
Apple said the decision about providing data is made “regardless of the circumstances”.
“Our legal team conducts an evaluation of each request and, only if appropriate, we retrieve and deliver the narrowest possible set of information to the authorities. In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it.
“Apple has always placed a priority on protecting our customers’ personal data, and we don’t collect or maintain a mountain of personal details about our customers in the first place. There are certain categories of information which we do not provide to law enforcement or any other group because we choose not to retain it.”
The company insists it cannot decrypt data to read iMessage and FaceTime conversations. They are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them, it explains.
Similarly, it says it does not store data related to customers’ location, map searches or Siri requests “in any identifiable form”.
Apple promised to continue to work hard to “strike the right balance between fulfilling our legal responsibilities and protecting our customers’ privacy as they expect and deserve”.
A number of Internet firms were accused of indiscriminately sharing customer data with government agencies as details of the PRISM programme were revealed by the Guardian newspaper.
Here is the statement, in full:
Two weeks ago, when technology companies were accused of indiscriminately sharing customer data with government agencies, Apple issued a clear response: We first heard of the government’s “Prism” program when news organizations asked us about it on June 6. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order.Like several other companies, we have asked the U.S. government for permission to report how many requests we receive related to national security and how we handle them. We have been authorized to share some of that data, and we are providing it here in the interest of transparency.
From December 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013, Apple received between 4,000 and 5,000 requests from U.S. law enforcement for customer data. Between 9,000 and 10,000 accounts or devices were specified in those requests, which came from federal, state and local authorities and included both criminal investigations and national security matters. The most common form of request comes from police investigating robberies and other crimes, searching for missing children, trying to locate a patient with Alzheimer’s disease, or hoping to prevent a suicide.
Regardless of the circumstances, our Legal team conducts an evaluation of each request and, only if appropriate, we retrieve and deliver the narrowest possible set of information to the authorities. In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it.
Apple has always placed a priority on protecting our customers’ personal data, and we don’t collect or maintain a mountain of personal details about our customers in the first place. There are certain categories of information which we do not provide to law enforcement or any other group because we choose not to retain it.
For example, conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data. Similarly, we do not store data related to customers’ location, Map searches or Siri requests in any identifiable form.
We will continue to work hard to strike the right balance between fulfilling our legal responsibilities and protecting our customers’ privacy as they expect and deserve.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Matt a nice guy but he is the establishment and has a D4 bias. Read his vitirol against McGregor yet relatively silent on his mate Hook.
Yates comes from privilege as stated himself in his book. Privately educated the silver cutlery set from his mouth not just the spoon.
Banks good, unions bad, we have to pay for water ah sure give the government a chance….. same same same……. Social media will thrive with this insiders at the helm pontificating.
@John Stafford: Considering Cooper from Cork he done well for himself if he has embedded him in the D4 establishment.
@mickmc: reread my comment. You are extracting meaning where there is none.
The McGregor/ Hook difference is only one example where he suits a story to fit a ideology.
I have met Matt on numerous occasions he is a nice guy but he is full of bias. He defends power and often he defends the indefensible as he is a hack lacking journalistic integrity.
This problem is not confined to Matt and is not supposed to be a personal tirade just the awful state of journalism in this country.
Yates counts DOB as his personal friend.
Dead cat show.
To cut a long story short : you will not get debate here. You will get bias, propaganda and misdirection.
I am being too harsh here. I am sure TV3 are environment conscious and reckon that they can reduce their carbon footprint by asking fellow ” I want your land” Pat Kenny to give the lads a lift home after rehearsals.
Sure they live in the same direction, eat in the same restaurant s and covert in the same bankrupt circles.
Doing their bit for the environment.
@John Stafford: I will be giving this a miss. Don’t like either of them. They definitely won’t be filling Vincent’s boots.
Jobs for the boys as usual! What is News?
@Bernadette Purcell: How dare they get jobs jist because theyre popular and experienced.
@Neal Ireland Hello.: they are yawn material.
@Neal Ireland Hello.: Agree whole-heartedly. If you are in the national spotlight, you will have as many haters as supporters. Bernadette would prefer some long-time Dole mule to get the job, despite the fact they dont want to work.
@Larry Fitzwell: I’d say your surname refers to how well your lower orifice accommodates your head.
It will be a pile of S@$te no doubt, pretty much like every tabloidish tripe that comes out of TV3, the only successful programme ever made on this ghastly station was tonight with Vincent Browne. Matt and Ivan are no Vincent’s , it will be a train wreck, Matt probing the nicetees of his guests, Ivan trying to concut conspiracies/ controversies even from the most mundane guests.
@Joseph Dempsey: What is the point of you? Writing something off before you have seen 1 minute of it!!! Must be hard to live with all that bitterness inside you?
@Larry Fitzwell: god bless you Larry, is that it, is this all you can contribute? It would normally take 10 seconds of my time to respond to anything TV3 has to offer but I was busy warming my redibrex. As an aside perhaps you could name a single production of quality that has come out of this station? It’s nothing but a cheap advertising bill board. Your final inference re living with bitterness has a disturbing undertone so doesn’t merit comment but I can assure you I live a deliriously happy life.
Life is far to short to spend even ten seconds listening to them two posh boys.
I’m expecting a cringe fest
Let’s hope they stick to the current affairs and it doesn’t become a quasi sports affair…there is enough of that on st the weekend.
It sounds awful. Iwouldn’t be bothered watching. Two DOB employees, one an ex-Fine Gael minister.
For the love of god, does everything have to be called “Today” or “Tonight” or The Daily Tonight Show” or some combination of the above!
As someone who get up early in the morning I can’t see myself getting to see too much of it if it’s starting at 11pm
It’s on too late. Why do both RTE and TV3 schedule current affairs programs when most people are heading off for a night’s sleep. Why aren’t these programs shown earlier in the evening instead of feckin Frock Finders and other similar dross.
POLL:
Will you be watching? Come on predictable journal
Mick Clifford : the only man for he job,This pair it will be all cosy and chummy with a few insider barbs exchanged,well that’s showbiz folks.
Will Enda be the first Guest
They are obviously not targetting the workimg audience, the people who get out of bed early have to be in bed by 11
Hope you’re opinionated and as bullish as ever Ivan,not a watered down version
It is an American approach, with 2 questioners of different view points, the purpose of which is to create an entertaining polarisation of outlook.
It is current affairs as light, very light, entertainment.
Who will do the nasty old guff and blather, refelecting the voice of prejudice and anti rationality?
How about discussing the witch hunt that was George Hook where you can’t even voice your opinion on the radio.
I’m not a fan of either of them, I can’t even listen to them on the radio but I’ll have a look at the show and see how it goes.
Better that than “a table with four walking legs,” like I experienced at a seance one night. Straight up. I announced I wasn’t convinced and the whole thing was a scam. A few minutes later I felt the pressure of (heavy) wood nudging me. No pulleys or other devices were in evidence…
have your say