HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Apple says it didn't know...

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 06:17 AM

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 didnít know Trumpís DOJ was asking for Democratsí 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 didnít know former President Donald Trumpís 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 didnít know former President Donald Trumpís Department of Justice was asking for the metadata of Democratic lawmakers when it complied with a subpoena seeking the information. ... Appleís admission that it complied with the DOJís request demonstrates the thorny position tech companies are placed in when forced to balance their customersí 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 Trumpís DOJ seized at least a dozen records from people close to the House intelligence panel related to news reports on the former presidentís 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

43 replies, 3221 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Apple says it didn't know Trump's DOJ was asking for Democrats' data when it complied with subpoena (Original post)
mahatmakanejeeves Jun 12 OP
Lovie777 Jun 12 #1
COL Mustard Jun 12 #35
bucolic_frolic Jun 12 #2
gab13by13 Jun 12 #3
mpcamb Jun 12 #5
gab13by13 Jun 12 #6
bamagal62 Jun 12 #11
maxsolomon Jun 12 #10
Maxheader Jun 12 #4
bucolic_frolic Jun 12 #8
marble falls Jun 12 #7
bluestarone Jun 12 #9
bamagal62 Jun 12 #12
blueinredohio Jun 12 #14
Hugh_Lebowski Jun 12 #29
twodogsbarking Jun 12 #13
Wuddles440 Jun 12 #19
onetexan Jun 12 #15
seta1950 Jun 12 #16
Chainfire Jun 12 #17
dalton99a Jun 12 #18
rockfordfile Jun 12 #28
tavernier Jun 12 #20
pnwmom Jun 12 #24
tavernier Jun 12 #31
pnwmom Jun 12 #37
DallasNE Jun 12 #21
ShazamIam Jun 12 #22
rockfordfile Jun 12 #27
Hugh_Lebowski Jun 12 #30
ShazamIam Jun 12 #33
SWBTATTReg Jun 12 #23
sarcasmo Jun 12 #25
rockfordfile Jun 12 #26
Hugh_Lebowski Jun 12 #34
pnwmom Jun 12 #38
Hugh_Lebowski Jun 12 #40
Hugh_Lebowski Jun 12 #32
monkeyman1 Jun 12 #36
pnwmom Jun 12 #39
monkeyman1 Jun 12 #41
C Moon Jun 12 #42
DFW Jun 13 #43

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 06:19 AM

1. No body knows nothing . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lovie777 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 05:56 PM

35. Paging Sergeant Schultz. Sergeant Schultz To The Commandant's Office

Jetzt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 07:08 AM

2. A grand jury and a judge signed off on this, that is troubling

My uneducated guess, nat sec "need to know" request. Too much in the DOJ's hip pocket?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 07:26 AM

3. The easiest way to get the subpoenas

would be through a grand jury, the bar is pretty low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 07:50 AM

5. Still, NAME THE JUDGE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mpcamb (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 07:52 AM

6. That is the scary part,

McConnell/Trump/Heritage Foundation put 323 Nazi judges on the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mpcamb (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:59 AM

11. This! I want to know the name of the judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:52 AM

10. "A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich".

-Sol Wachtler

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 07:32 AM

4. if their gonna bribe the eukraine,



their gonna bribe america...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maxheader (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:11 AM

8. Good read

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:03 AM

7. I'd think with all that loot and high-priced lawyers, their deniability would be more plausible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:15 AM

9. Question for the smart ones here

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 10:03 AM

12. Would also like to know the answer to this.

Especially since, during that time, everyone was ignoring subpoenas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bamagal62 (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 10:56 AM

14. And they have plenty of money to hire some damn good lawyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bamagal62 (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 04:06 PM

29. I get the point but a court subpoena is different than a congressional one

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 10:06 AM

13. When Trump accuses others of crimes

he is really telling us he has already committed the same crimes.
He has done it dozens of times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to twodogsbarking (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 11:31 AM

19. Projection....

is a standard MO for the GQP - always has been, always will be. It's in their DNA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 11:01 AM

15. Not buying the apple's bullcrap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 11:10 AM

16. What I'd like to know

Is who is the federal judge , who thought this was ok to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 11:15 AM

17. Witch hunt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 11:27 AM

18. The subpoena was signed by Jocelyn Valentine and authorized by Deborah Robinson

The nondisclosure order was extended three times, each time for a year, Apple said. When it was not extended for a fourth time, Apple said it informed the affected customers on May 5, 2021.

"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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 03:30 PM

28. Jocelyn Valentine should be arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 11:36 AM

20. Say you own a boarding house with 500 rooms.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavernier (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 02:03 PM

24. You answer the door and they hand you a subpoena telling you to give them the keys. You do.

The subpoena comes with a gag order. The vast majority of people would comply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #24)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 04:17 PM

31. I think I was more concerned

that they would not be curious or concerned about who and why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavernier (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:47 PM

37. How do you know no one was? Or who knew about this besides the paralegal

who was given the task of answering the subpoena?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 12:11 PM

21. The Line Of Defense Here

Is the federal magistrate judge. So is this a case of Judge shopping and an ugly consequence of that practice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 12:21 PM

22. She is a Reagan era appointment and was also the Judge for Manafort and remember,

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShazamIam (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 03:24 PM

27. This is corruption and imo she should resign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShazamIam (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 04:10 PM

30. Judge for the arraignment of Manafort, trial judge IIRC was a dude named Ellis (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugh_Lebowski (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 04:41 PM

33. Yes, Judge Robinson was the presiding Judge, link posted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 01:10 PM

23. Seems like some civil lawsuits are called for here, being that these persons' civil rights and data,

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 02:06 PM

25. Everybody using the Oliver North defense. LMFAO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 03:22 PM

26. I'm not buying Apple's response

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rockfordfile (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 04:41 PM

34. It is totally viable that they were given cryptic identifiers to start

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugh_Lebowski (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:50 PM

38. Do you think the average American knows who Adam Schiff is? Or would recognize

most of the Congress members names on the list? Or their staffers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #38)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:55 PM

40. There also exists a possibility they didn't recognize it even AFTER they did the work, yes

But I don't think that's what they're arguing is my point.

A careful parsing of these words: "Apple said Friday it didnít know former President Donald Trumpís 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 04:27 PM

32. Sounds like Apple really didn't give them much

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:01 PM

36. "WHAT THE F%#K !


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 ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monkeyman1 (Reply #36)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 09:51 PM

39. I bet if you went out onto any city street you'd find MOST people wouldn't recognize

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 10:06 PM

41. hate to say it , but , ya got me on that one ! thank's !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jun 12, 2021, 11:59 PM

42. There sure was a lot of dirt going on behind the scenes--and in the front, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sun Jun 13, 2021, 01:39 AM

43. Of course they didn't know. After all, what are they? A software company?

Oh. Wait. Never mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread