Rigby family attack Apple for ‘protecting privacy of murderers’
Firm has previously unlocked iPhones for the FBI 70 times
THE family of Lee Rigby yesterday accused Apple of putting the privacy of t errorists ahead of public safety by refusing t o unlock t he phone of an IS-inspired killer.
The uncle of the fusilier, who was murdered by Islamic extremists in London in 2013, said the company was acting l i ke i t had ‘ sympathy f or terrorists’.
Apple is refusing to comply with a court order demanding that it unlocks an iPhone belonging to one of the terrorists behind the massacre in San Bernardino, California, in December.
Fusilier Rigby’s uncle, Ray McClure, said the company and chief executive Tim Cook were ‘ protecting a murderer’s privacy at the cost of public safety’.
He told the BBC: ‘Valuable evidence is on that smartphone and Apple is denying the FBI access to that information.
‘If a court issued a warrant in the UK or United States to search somebody’s house, you wouldn’t stop them, you would allow them in. Why should a smartphone be any different?
‘If Mr Cook has no sympathy for terrorists, why is he stopping the FBI accessing t hose phone records?’
It was reported yesterday that Apple has previously unlocked iPhones 70 times in criminal cases far less serious than terrorism.
Court documents said the technology firm did not like doing so because the disclosure that it was working with law enforcement could ‘substantially tarnish the Apple brand’.
Apple has refused a court order to unlock an iPhone belonging to Syed Farook, who along with his wife Tashfeen Malik shot and killed 14 people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, on December 2 last year.
The couple, who had been radicalised to become IS supporters on the internet, were later killed by police in a shoot- out. Earlier this week Mr Cook said he was refusing to co-operate because the implications were ‘chilling’ and it ‘threatens the security of our customers’.
But Mr McClure said the company was forgetting about the victims of crime and their families. ‘I would hate to see on the streets of London another murder like happened to Lee Rigby, I’d hate to see another attack like happened in Paris,’ he said.
‘How many victims of crime are not getting justice because of Apple’s stance?’
Google chief executive Sundar Pichai tweeted his support for Apple and said for it to comply with the court order would set a ‘troubling precedent’ and could ‘compromise’ the privacy of users.
Fusilier Rigby, 25, was stabbed to death outside his barracks in Greenwich, south London, by two Islamists who said they were avenging the deaths of Muslims killed by the Army.
Relatives of the San Bernardino victims also called on Apple to obey the law. Mandy Pifer, whose fiance Shannon Johnson was killed, said: ‘I feel like now there are a bunch of terrorists running out and buying iPhones, like the little ‘I’ in iPhone should be for ISIS.
‘A lot of these privacy questions are hypothetical. But we know for a fact Syed Farook killed 14 and there are missing pieces there.’
It was reported yesterday by the Daily Beast, a US news and culture website, that in a case in New York last year it was revealed that Apple had unlocked phones for the FBI 70 times since 2008, figures the company does not dispute.
But in a briefing for the court Apple said it did not want to do so because ‘forcing Apple to extract data… absent clear legal authority to do so, could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the brand’.
Republican Senator Tom Cotton said Apple was choosing to ‘protect a dead terrorist’s privacy over the security of the American people’.
An Apple source said the New York case involved an iPhone that had an earlier version of its operating system. Farook’s phone has a later operating system that Apple says it can’t unlock.
‘Victims of crime not getting justice’
That the late apple founder Steve Jobs was an autocrat obsessed with buil di ng computers and phones with privacy settings that are impossible to break into and which hate ‘talking to’ any machines from other companies is no secret. But what is now becoming apparent is that the world’s largest corporation — currently valued at $538 billion (£371 billion) — has become so convinced of its own importance and global reach that it can openly defy national governments not only on tax, but on matters of national security.
apple has incurred the fury of the U.S. authorities over its refusal to let the Federal Bureau of I nvestigation gather vital intelligence data from an iPhone owned by a terrorist who was killed by police.
the Islamic fanatic had taken part in the slaughter at San Bernardino, California, last December, in which he and his wife — whom police also killed — shot dead 14 staff celebrating their Christmas party at a disability centre, and injured another 22.
Understandably, U.S. intelligence agencies are desperate to gather as much information as they can about how the killers were radicalised. Clearly, this would be vital in helping to prevent future atrocities.
Yet this week, apple’s chief executive officer, tim Cook, refused a magistrate’s order to help the Obama administration break i nto the apple phone that had belonged to the terrorist.
Investigators can’t access the phone because they don’t know the killer’s password.
apple has been ordered to develop software that will allow police to access the iPhone and bypass its ‘self-wiping’ mechanism — but the company is refusing to co-operate.
In a post on apple’s website, Cook declared that compliance with the order would mean creating the equivalent of a ‘master key’ capable of unlocking anyone’s i Phone: ‘ the U. S. Government has asked us for something we do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. they have asked us to build a back door to the iPhone.’
Can apple really be suggesting that, by helping in this case, every single iPhone user’s personal data would be threatened?
Certainly, the obduracy of the Silicon Valleybased giant seems incomprehensible in the face of the terrorist threat to us all. Why on earth would they not want to help prevent atrocities with every means at their disposal?
NOT only does the privacy argument put forward by tim Cook not bear scrutiny, but it is also hugely hypocritical. For, in common with fellow internet-based titans such as Google, Facebook and eBay, apple has no compunction at all about using the personal details of its customers for commercial gain.
these companies happily sell on information about us to third parties such as advertisers and other firms, who can then flog us their wares, whether we like it or not.
they mine every scrap of personal data so as to identify our friends, family and work colleagues, as well as intimate details such as the medicines we need, our buying habits and our vital statistics.
It is an invasion of privacy that is unprecedented in human history.
as part of a Faustian pact with the high-tech companies, we tend to accept this intrusion as a necessary evil, largely because we have become so over-dependent on the devices that apple provides.
But in our credulous willingness to sign up in our millions to this electronic world, we have enabled corporations such as Google and apple to grow so large that they have no loyalty to any government and are contemptuous of their moral responsibilities to society.
apple’s refusal to help over the San Bernardino massacre investigation follows the disgracefully small tax settlement reached this year in the UK between Google and her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue, under which the company agreed to pay a pathetic £135 million in back taxes on billions of pounds worth of profit.
It is estimated that america’s corporate high-tech giants have deposited a staggering £1.5 trillion in offshore accounts in Bermuda, the Caymans and other tax-beneficial parts of the world so as to escape the taxes that ordinary citizens and smaller businesses are forced to pay in the countries in which they operate.
Inevitably, apple is currently embroiled in its own major tax row.
Last month, its boss tim Cook f l ew to Brussels to l obby EU officials ahead of their ruling on a case that could force the company to pay billions in underpaid taxes to Ireland.
In another controversial tax-reducing move in the U.S., apple has issued £8.3 billion of bonds to investors — borrowing the money at super-low interest rates — rather than using some of the £122 billion in cash it holds overseas. Cynically, it refuses to repatriate this money to the U.S. because apple’s executives knows that, if they do so, the firm will be liable for a big tax bill.
By shamefully refusing to pay its dues in taxes, apple is depriving america of money that could go towards the country’s armed forces, its welfare bills for the elderly and less well- off and its healthcare costs.
But it’s not just apple that has lost its moral compass.
the internet auction site eBay happily trades in all manner of products that should not be put on sale by a responsible organisation.
For example, it allows the sale on its site of dangerously powerful lasers such as those that were shone in the faces of pilots of a Virgin jet flying to america this week, forcing them to return their plane to heathrow airport.
Other products freely available include Nazi memorabilia, ivory from slaughtered african elephants and sickening items celebrating the lives of convicted sex offenders including Rolf harris, Gary Glitter and Stuart hall.
None of this should surprise us. after all, it was recently disclosed that paedophiles are using dark corners of Facebook to store and exchange offensive images.
Silicon Valley giants are also guilty of sharp practices that not only damage their rivals, but punish their customers in the long term.
For instance, the power of amazon to sell books at budget prices has led to the closure of scores of independent booksellers.
SALES of other products from the e- commerce giant dramatically undercut rival high Street outfits which have to pay more tax. this has led to many firms going out of business and has impoverished town centres throughout Britain.
For many years, amazon has reduced its tax bill by exploiting rules that allowed it to log sales of items in Britain to its European HQ in Luxembourg, where corporate taxes are less punitive.
For its part, Google has been partly r esponsible f or huge damage to the music industry because of its continued inclusion of music piracy websites in its search rankings.
Now, we have apple’s brazen defiance of the authorities trying to fight terrorism.
this is in stark contrast to firms that accept that, i n an age i n which terrorists use electronic devices to kill innocent people, our police and security services must be al l owed access to confidential data — albeit under strictly controlled conditions.
Vodafone, the biggest mobile provider, has long had an agreement with the UK Government which allows intelligence services controlled access to information it holds about its customers.
Of course, we must protect our democratic freedoms. But for apple to refuse to help the FBI access vital evidence concerning a terrorist — while protesting about its customers’ privacy — is both massively hypocritical and, to my mind, amoral.
the idea that it considers itself above the l aws of the l and, particularly when people’s lives are at risk, is repugnant.
It is time Western governments forced these arrogant high-tech despots to toe the line.