Apple says it didn't know Trump's DOJ was asking for Democrats' data when it complied with subpoena
Source: CNBC
TECH
Apple says it didnt know Trumps DOJ was asking for Democrats data when it complied with subpoena
PUBLISHED FRI, JUN 11 20217:38 PM EDT
Steve Kovach
@STEVEKOVACH https://twitter.com/stevekovach
KEY POINTS
-- Apple on Friday said it didnt know former President Donald Trumps Department of Justice was subpoenaed data on Democrats when it complied with the request.
-- Apple said it was under a gag order not to disclose the subpoena to the affected parties.
-- Microsoft also acknowledged it received a similar subpoena.
Apple said Friday it didnt know former President Donald Trumps Department of Justice was asking for the metadata of Democratic lawmakers when it complied with a subpoena seeking the information. ... Apples admission that it complied with the DOJs request demonstrates the thorny position tech companies are placed in when forced to balance their customers private online activity with legitimate requests from law enforcement. In general, companies like Apple challenge such requests, but in this case a grand jury and federal judge forced Apple to comply and keep it quiet. (1)
The admission follows a Thursday New York Times report that Trumps DOJ seized at least a dozen records from people close to the House intelligence panel related to news reports on the former presidents contacts with Russia. At the time, the DOJ was looking for records from House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and committee member Eric Swalwell, D-Calif. (2)
Apple said it received a subpoena from a federal grand jury on Feb. 6, 2018. According to Apple, the subpoena requested data that belonged to a seemingly random group of email addresses and phone numbers. Apple said it provided the identifiers it had for some of the requests from the DOJ, but not all of the requests were for Apple customers.
Because of a nondisclosure order signed by a federal magistrate judge, Apple could not notify the people that their data was subpoenaed. The so-called gag order lifted on May 5, which is why Apple only recently alerted the affected users. According to Apple, the subpoena did not provide details on the nature of the investigation. ... Apple spokesperson Fred Sainz said in a statement that the company did not and could not have known who was being targeted by the request. .
{snip}
(1) https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/11/schiff-calls-for-probe-into-trump-doj-seizing-house-democrats-data-.html
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/us/politics/justice-department-leaks-trump-administration.html
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/11/apple-says-it-didnt-know-trumps-doj-was-asking-for-democrats-data.html
Lovie777
(11,990 posts)COL Mustard
(5,782 posts)Jetzt!
bucolic_frolic
(42,670 posts)My uneducated guess, nat sec "need to know" request. Too much in the DOJ's hip pocket?
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)would be through a grand jury, the bar is pretty low.
mpcamb
(2,855 posts)gab13by13
(20,864 posts)McConnell/Trump/Heritage Foundation put 323 Nazi judges on the courts.
bamagal62
(3,218 posts)maxsolomon
(32,984 posts)-Sol Wachtler
Maxheader
(4,366 posts)their gonna bribe america...
bucolic_frolic
(42,670 posts)If they can document a few of those it might create some significant space for new appointees!
I really do think you're on to something.
marble falls
(56,358 posts)bluestarone
(16,720 posts)What would have been the penalty, IF Apple would have NOT abided by this gag order? Seems like they COULD have blew this up in RUMP and BARRS face?
bamagal62
(3,218 posts)Especially since, during that time, everyone was ignoring subpoenas.
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Just sayin'
twodogsbarking
(9,302 posts)he is really telling us he has already committed the same crimes.
He has done it dozens of times.
Wuddles440
(1,098 posts)is a standard MO for the GQP - always has been, always will be. It's in their DNA.
onetexan
(12,994 posts)seta1950
(932 posts)Is who is the federal judge , who thought this was ok to do?
Chainfire
(17,305 posts)dalton99a
(81,065 posts)"In this case, the subpoena, which was issued by a federal grand jury and included a nondisclosure order signed by a federal magistrate judge, provided no information on the nature of the investigation and it would have been virtually impossible for Apple to understand the intent of the desired information without digging through users' accounts," Apple said in the statement. "Consistent with the request, Apple limited the information it provided to account subscriber information and did not provide any content such as emails or pictures."
The subpoena was signed by prosecutor Jocelyn Valentine and authorized by Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson in DC federal court, the source familiar with the request said.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/11/politics/justice-department-apple-congress-leak-investigation/index.html
rockfordfile
(8,682 posts)tavernier
(12,322 posts)Some official government guy knocks on your door and says he wants the keys to ten of the rooms that are being rented by folks who are living there. You give him the keys because he looks and sounds threatening. You have no interest in finding out which folks you have just sold out, even though they are still paying you full rent.
Hmm.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)The subpoena comes with a gag order. The vast majority of people would comply.
tavernier
(12,322 posts)that they would not be curious or concerned about who and why.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)who was given the task of answering the subpoena?
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)Is the federal magistrate judge. So is this a case of Judge shopping and an ugly consequence of that practice?
ShazamIam
(2,559 posts)she just dropped some of the long list of his charges or something like that.
Here is more on her: https://heavy.com/news/2017/10/deborah-robinson-judge-manafort-son-federal/
rockfordfile
(8,682 posts)Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)ShazamIam
(2,559 posts)SWBTATTReg
(21,859 posts)were captured without legitimate cause, for purely political reasons. Also, again RICO the entire trump administration if you can't locate the actual person or persons that demanded this data. More than likely, it was trump all along in his attempts to hopefully capture some illegally obtained data on blackmailing these people whose data was captured illegally. The judges had to approve the wiretaps etc. for a valid cause, why did they approve these taps? That's why they have multiple tiers of judges approving these taps, so abuse can't happen and the abuse still happened. I dealt w/ subpoenas from the Feds quite a bit, call data (accounting wise), for a particular NPA NXX xxxx number, no reason or rationale was provided w/ the requests that came in, just the requests which my account exec passed to me (in IT) to gather the data and forward it to the account exec...
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)rockfordfile
(8,682 posts)Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Data points like 'deviceID', which might look like gdafata3124ef33ef123.
They were then tasked to 'tell us what Apple account holder name is associated with the iPhone gdafata3124ef33ef123?'
Obviously once they replied with that info, they knew who the targets were, but I think they're arguing they didn't know originally/prior to their analyses.
You just have to kinda parse their corporate lawyer CYA word choice to realize that's what they are claiming.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)most of the Congress members names on the list? Or their staffers?
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)But I don't think that's what they're arguing is my point.
A careful parsing of these words: "Apple said Friday it didnt know former President Donald Trumps Department of Justice was asking for the metadata of Democratic lawmakers when it complied with a subpoena seeking the information"
along with
"Apple spokesperson Fred Sainz said in a statement that the company did not and could not have known who was being targeted by the request."
leads me to that supposition.
"and could not" is a key addition to their claim, one which I strongly doubt their lawyers would make blithely, given the stakes and high-profile nature of the case.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)"Consistent with the request, Apple limited the information it provided to account subscriber information and did not provide any content such as emails or pictures."
And I don't have reason to doubt them.
This MIGHT make the whole thing a bit less egregious by everyone involved as IIRC it's already been decided by courts in the past that the bar for this type of information is lower.
I remember going through the whole 'metadata' arguments back in the NSA spying scandal of the Bush era.
The question this does bring up in my mind, however, is ... where did these anonymous identifiers they gave to Apple/MS come from originally?
I think there's a chance that other data, that probably should be more private (my suspicion would be the deviceIDs of phones, which is a random but unique identifier for a handset), was leveraged to get these identifiers, and then basically the DoJ reached out to Apple to confirm who they belonged to.
Which in turn makes me suspicious they either used NSA resources to track calls, or subpoenaed mobile call records from carriers as well because tracking calls and texts by mobile phones would be done via deviceID and IP address and similarly cryptic data points. This would be 'metadata'.
IOW the 'starting point' of all this might've been a massive data-mining operation of mobile and internet usage records.
And THAT might be where some real illegality came into play.
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)you've got to kid'n me ! these dumb people at apple don't recognize people's name's in the government! what stupid lawyer came up with that one ?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)names of Congress people out of context -- and no one would know the names of their staffers.
Only 37% can name their OWN representative in Congress. Many many fewer know the names of other people in Congress.
I bet Nancy Pelosi is one of the few, simply because Trump mentions her so often.
https://www.haveninsights.com/just-37-percent-name-representative/
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)C Moon
(12,188 posts)DFW
(54,051 posts)Oh. Wait. Never mind.