Tim Cook’s biggest legacy - keeping encryption alive.
One of the most important precedents set by Apple during Tim Cook’s reign was undoubtedly maintaining Security and Privacy as a pillar for Apple. The lengths with which Apple goes to make sure their customers’ devices and information is safe and secure is beyond what many other companies do.
Apple has set the bar, but that bar came under attack after one of the biggest showdowns between tech companies and the U.S. Government:
The FBI vs. Apple incident of 2016
In December 2015, a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California left 14 people dead and 22 injured. The suspect and his wife were eventually caught and killed in a shootout with US authorities. The main suspect, Syed Rizwan Farook, was using an iPhone, and the FBI wanted to get inside his phone and bypass the passcode to get more information. After being unable to bypass the device themselves and being afraid that too many unsuccessful attempts might factory reset the device, they requested Apple to make an unprecedented move - create a custom backdoor to iOS to allow the FBI full access to his device.
In other words, break device encryption completely by creating an unsecured version of iOS.
Tim Cook declined to make a custom version of iOS with a “backdoor key” because it would fundamentally put every single iPhone user at risk, and once Apple sets this precedent, all other phone makers would have to follow suit, leading to the demise of encryption, security, and privacy as we know it.
Tim Cook and Apple formally addressed this issue in a Customer Letter released on February 16, 2016:
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control. […]
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them. […]
The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.
The question is, if the terrorist had an Android phone, what would the outcome have been? Would Google allow a backdoor? I believe the answer still is not obvious today even though privacy has become more appreciated within the past 10 years, but in 2016, Apple was the best company to have been in that position.
Sundar Pichai at the time did support Apple’s decision, but with a set of tweets and not a formal letter:
The long wait for Google's response, and the extremely careful wording of Pichai's statements, hint at the difficult position Google now finds itself in with this issue. You can almost hear the PR and legal departments laboring for hours on whether and how to respond.
In the end, Google chose to put out a statement in a series of semi-formal tweets from a top executive, rather than releasing an official press release, blog post or open letter similar to Cook's. Likewise, Microsoft, Facebook and other technology giants mostly stayed quiet throughout that first day and let an independent coalition they belong to speak on their behalf.
It wasn't until more than 24 hours later that Facebook and Twitter put out statements of their own -- and Twitter, like Google, only did so through its CEO's Twitter account.
Sundar’s Tweets:
1/5 Important post by @tim_cook. Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy
2/5 We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism
3/5 We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders
4/5 But that’s wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent
5/5 Looking forward to a thoughtful and open discussion on this important issue
Apple’s multitude of major products under Tim Cook, such as the Apple Watch, AirPods, and even Apple Silicon have changed the game, but none of that would matter if we didn’t have encryption, privacy, and security.
One of the most important precedents set by Apple during Tim Cook’s reign was undoubtedly maintaining Security and Privacy as a pillar for Apple. The lengths with which Apple goes to make sure their customers’ devices and information is safe and secure is beyond what many other companies do.
Apple has set the bar, but that bar came under attack after one of the biggest showdowns between tech companies and the U.S. Government:
The FBI vs. Apple incident of 2016
In December 2015, a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California left 14 people dead and 22 injured. The suspect and his wife were eventually caught and killed in a shootout with US authorities. The main suspect, Syed Rizwan Farook, was using an iPhone, and the FBI wanted to get inside his phone and bypass the passcode to get more information. After being unable to bypass the device themselves and being afraid that too many unsuccessful attempts might factory reset the device, they requested Apple to make an unprecedented move - create a custom backdoor to iOS to allow the FBI full access to his device.
In other words, break device encryption completely by creating an unsecured version of iOS.
Tim Cook declined to make a custom version of iOS with a “backdoor key” because it would fundamentally put every single iPhone user at risk, and once Apple sets this precedent, all other phone makers would have to follow suit, leading to the demise of encryption, security, and privacy as we know it.
Tim Cook and Apple formally addressed this issue in a Customer Letter released on February 16, 2016:
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control. […]
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them. […]
The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.
The question is, if the terrorist had an Android phone, what would the outcome have been? Would Google allow a backdoor? I believe the answer still is not obvious today even though privacy has become more appreciated within the past 10 years, but in 2016, Apple was the best company to have been in that position.
Sundar Pichai at the time did support Apple’s decision, but with a set of tweets and not a formal letter:
The long wait for Google's response, and the extremely careful wording of Pichai's statements, hint at the difficult position Google now finds itself in with this issue. You can almost hear the PR and legal departments laboring for hours on whether and how to respond.
In the end, Google chose to put out a statement in a series of semi-formal tweets from a top executive, rather than releasing an official press release, blog post or open letter similar to Cook's. Likewise, Microsoft, Facebook and other technology giants mostly stayed quiet throughout that first day and let an independent coalition they belong to speak on their behalf.
It wasn't until more than 24 hours later that Facebook and Twitter put out statements of their own -- and Twitter, like Google, only did so through its CEO's Twitter account.
Sundar’s Tweets:
1/5 Important post by @tim_cook. Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy
2/5 We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism
3/5 We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders
4/5 But that’s wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent
5/5 Looking forward to a thoughtful and open discussion on this important issue
Apple’s multitude of major products under Tim Cook, such as the Apple Watch, AirPods, and even Apple Silicon have changed the game, but none of that would matter if we didn’t have encryption, privacy, and security.
Lung cancer risk is higher in people who eat…fruits and vegetables??
The new study, which surveyed 187 young patients diagnosed with lung cancer, has found an infuriating link between the incidence of lung cancer and these patients’ statistically higher consumption of healthy foods, including dark green vegetables and legumes. Medical oncologist Jorge Nieva at USC Keck, a coauthor on the new research, noted that past studies have also documented higher rates of lung cancer in agricultural workers exposed to pesticides—evidence that would support their theory of pesticides’ causal relationship to the disease.
“Our research shows that younger non-smokers who eat a higher quantity of healthy foods than the general population are more likely to develop lung cancer,” Nieva, a specialist in lung cancer, said in a statement.
“These counter-intuitive findings raise important questions about an unknown environmental risk factor for lung cancer related to otherwise beneficial food,” he noted, “that needs to be addressed.” […]
Most patients had reportedly never smoked, possibly not even once or twice at house parties.
But what most of these young cancer patients had done is eat a statistically higher daily amount of fruit, vegetables, and whole grains compared to the average member of the general public.
Here’s what Nieva’s team found when comparing this lung cancer cohort’s data to data on the eating habits recorded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Young lung cancer patients averaged about 4.3 servings of dark green vegetables and legumes per day, compared to the average American’s 3.6 servings. These patients also averaged 3.9 servings of whole grains daily, compared to the average American’s 2.6 servings.
One of the more blood-boiling things about these fruits and vegetables, according to Nieva, is that the non-organic varieties tend to also have higher pesticide residues than the food less health-conscious people are likely to enjoy, including dairy, meat, and many processed foods.
The part that pisses me off:
And it bears repeating that their survey-based research has only found a troubling overlap in these pesticide exposures and incidences of lung cancer, not concrete proof of a biochemical mechanism confirming these compounds are carcinogenic.
OK, so pesticides like the most infamous one (glyphosate) might cause cancer, but it’s not proven yet - there’s just a “troubling overlap” between pesticide exposures and cancer.
My family has been going organic with certain foods and we have discontinued the use of GMO cereal at our house, but everyone needs to go as organic as possible. In the back of my mind, that still won’t be enough to solve this issue.
A more recent therapeutic oil that I have been “dailying” these days is black seed oil. Great for many ailments including inflammation, blood sugar regulation, lowering bad and raising good cholesterol, and relevant to this story, great at neutralizing cancer-causing free radicals. One teaspoon a day is a good start, and probably enough for most people.
The other route? All food is bad for you and will kill you, so go all in and enjoy, and blame genetics at the end of the day. Honestly, this option is starting to feel more and more palatable.
The new study, which surveyed 187 young patients diagnosed with lung cancer, has found an infuriating link between the incidence of lung cancer and these patients’ statistically higher consumption of healthy foods, including dark green vegetables and legumes. Medical oncologist Jorge Nieva at USC Keck, a coauthor on the new research, noted that past studies have also documented higher rates of lung cancer in agricultural workers exposed to pesticides—evidence that would support their theory of pesticides’ causal relationship to the disease.
“Our research shows that younger non-smokers who eat a higher quantity of healthy foods than the general population are more likely to develop lung cancer,” Nieva, a specialist in lung cancer, said in a statement.
“These counter-intuitive findings raise important questions about an unknown environmental risk factor for lung cancer related to otherwise beneficial food,” he noted, “that needs to be addressed.” […]
Most patients had reportedly never smoked, possibly not even once or twice at house parties.
But what most of these young cancer patients had done is eat a statistically higher daily amount of fruit, vegetables, and whole grains compared to the average member of the general public.
Here’s what Nieva’s team found when comparing this lung cancer cohort’s data to data on the eating habits recorded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Young lung cancer patients averaged about 4.3 servings of dark green vegetables and legumes per day, compared to the average American’s 3.6 servings. These patients also averaged 3.9 servings of whole grains daily, compared to the average American’s 2.6 servings.
One of the more blood-boiling things about these fruits and vegetables, according to Nieva, is that the non-organic varieties tend to also have higher pesticide residues than the food less health-conscious people are likely to enjoy, including dairy, meat, and many processed foods.
The part that pisses me off:
And it bears repeating that their survey-based research has only found a troubling overlap in these pesticide exposures and incidences of lung cancer, not concrete proof of a biochemical mechanism confirming these compounds are carcinogenic.
OK, so pesticides like the most infamous one (glyphosate) might cause cancer, but it’s not proven yet - there’s just a “troubling overlap” between pesticide exposures and cancer.
My family has been going organic with certain foods and we have discontinued the use of GMO cereal at our house, but everyone needs to go as organic as possible. In the back of my mind, that still won’t be enough to solve this issue.
A more recent therapeutic oil that I have been “dailying” these days is black seed oil. Great for many ailments including inflammation, blood sugar regulation, lowering bad and raising good cholesterol, and relevant to this story, great at neutralizing cancer-causing free radicals. One teaspoon a day is a good start, and probably enough for most people.
The other route? All food is bad for you and will kill you, so go all in and enjoy, and blame genetics at the end of the day. Honestly, this option is starting to feel more and more palatable.
Apple gets spared by the EU for Apple Ads and Apple Maps because they’re not, “big enough.”
The EU, reported by MacRumors:
Following a review of Apple’s arguments, the Commission has concluded that Apple does not qualify as a gatekeeper in relation to Apple Ads and Apple Maps, as neither of these platform services constitute an important gateway for business users to reach end users. This assessment is based on a number of considerations, including that Apple Maps has a relatively low overall usage rate in the EU, and that Apple Ads has very limited scale in the online advertising sector in the EU.
Expect this to be reversed once Apple Ads and Apple Maps do get more traction in the EU, but my gut tells me we’ll be past iPhone 20 when this happens.
The EU, reported by MacRumors:
Following a review of Apple’s arguments, the Commission has concluded that Apple does not qualify as a gatekeeper in relation to Apple Ads and Apple Maps, as neither of these platform services constitute an important gateway for business users to reach end users. This assessment is based on a number of considerations, including that Apple Maps has a relatively low overall usage rate in the EU, and that Apple Ads has very limited scale in the online advertising sector in the EU.
Expect this to be reversed once Apple Ads and Apple Maps do get more traction in the EU, but my gut tells me we’ll be past iPhone 20 when this happens.
The title of this video doesn’t do it justice.
Another Steven Bartlett video that goes way beyond just the title. An eye opener for those trying to get a better understanding of how different government agencies work around the world.
Another Steven Bartlett video that goes way beyond just the title. An eye opener for those trying to get a better understanding of how different government agencies work around the world.
Bittersweet, gas guzzling, HEMI powered V-8 Ram SRT TRX announced just two days before Nicolás Maduro was captured.
I’m sure Stellantis wasn’t in on the plot to capture Nicolás Maduro, but announcing the return of their newest monster on New Years day, two days prior to Maduro’s capture, is just bad timing. Or is it good timing?
With impactful performance updates, the 2027 Ram 1500 SRT TRX cements itself as the fastest and most powerful, production, gas pick-up truck in the world, once again setting the record for the half-ton segment. TRX put the industry on notice when it debuted in 2021, and after a brief hibernation, it reclaims its spot at the top of the food chain.
I read both headlines on the same day, and it’s hard not to make a connection even though there is no connection.
I’m sure Stellantis wasn’t in on the plot to capture Nicolás Maduro, but announcing the return of their newest monster on New Years day, two days prior to Maduro’s capture, is just bad timing. Or is it good timing?
With impactful performance updates, the 2027 Ram 1500 SRT TRX cements itself as the fastest and most powerful, production, gas pick-up truck in the world, once again setting the record for the half-ton segment. TRX put the industry on notice when it debuted in 2021, and after a brief hibernation, it reclaims its spot at the top of the food chain.
I read both headlines on the same day, and it’s hard not to make a connection even though there is no connection.
China says reuniting with Taiwan is “unstoppable” (insert punctuation of choice here)
Most non-China based media reported it as, “unstoppable” but if you look at the full transcript of the speech reported by Chinese news outlets, it is reported as, “unstoppable!” The video was deliberately, politically monotone all the way through, but the subtitles during the video also said, “unstoppable!”
Most non-China based media reported it as, “unstoppable” but if you look at the full transcript of the speech reported by Chinese news outlets, it is reported as, “unstoppable!” The video was deliberately, politically monotone all the way through, but the subtitles during the video also said, “unstoppable!”
Surveillance through smartphones.
Ben Lovejoy from 9to5Mac:
The Indian government has ordered Apple and other smartphone manufacturers to pre-install a state-owned “security” app on all phones before they are sold to users.
Adding fuel to the privacy fire, the government is also requiring smartphone makers to ensure that the app cannot be removed by users …
Reuters reports that those who already own iPhones won’t escape either: Apple and others are also being instructed by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to push the app to existing phones via a software update. […]
Apple is likely to push back, hoping to persuade the government to agree to a less extreme policy like offering the app to users during setup and allowing wording that encourages them to install it.
However, ultimately, if negotiations are unsuccessful, it will have to comply with the law. Apple has already been forced to compromise user privacy in China by storing iCloud data on servers owned by a company directly linked to the Chinese government. Apple has also removed VPN and foreign news apps from its Chinese App Store when instructed to do so.
As with China, Apple is in a double-bind here as India is not only a growing market for the company’s products, but also an increasingly important manufacturing centre. Withdrawing from that market in order to uphold its values is not a practical option.
Saw this news story the same day I watched the Mrwhosetheboss’s North Korea video, showing the extreme control North Korea has over their citizens.
Something tells me that even though most world leaders condemn North Korea, they secretly would like to have just as much control over the people.
Ben Lovejoy from 9to5Mac:
The Indian government has ordered Apple and other smartphone manufacturers to pre-install a state-owned “security” app on all phones before they are sold to users.
Adding fuel to the privacy fire, the government is also requiring smartphone makers to ensure that the app cannot be removed by users …
Reuters reports that those who already own iPhones won’t escape either: Apple and others are also being instructed by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to push the app to existing phones via a software update. […]
Apple is likely to push back, hoping to persuade the government to agree to a less extreme policy like offering the app to users during setup and allowing wording that encourages them to install it.
However, ultimately, if negotiations are unsuccessful, it will have to comply with the law. Apple has already been forced to compromise user privacy in China by storing iCloud data on servers owned by a company directly linked to the Chinese government. Apple has also removed VPN and foreign news apps from its Chinese App Store when instructed to do so.
As with China, Apple is in a double-bind here as India is not only a growing market for the company’s products, but also an increasingly important manufacturing centre. Withdrawing from that market in order to uphold its values is not a practical option.
Saw this news story the same day I watched the Mrwhosetheboss’s North Korea video, showing the extreme control North Korea has over their citizens.
Something tells me that even though most world leaders condemn North Korea, they secretly would like to have just as much control over the people.