Slashdot Mirror
Tim Cook Says Apple Can't Read Users' Emails, That iCloud Wasn't Hacked
Apple CEO Tim Cook insists that Apple doesn't read -- in fact, says Cook, cannot read -- user's emails, and that the company's iCloud service wasn't hacked. ZDNet presents highlights from Cook's lengthy, two-part interview with Charlie Rose. One selection of particular interest:
Apple previously said that even it can't access iMessage and FaceTime communications, stating that such messages and calls are not held in an "identifiable form." [Cook] claimed if the government "laid a subpoena," then Apple "can't provide it." He said, bluntly: "We don't have a key... the door is closed." He reiterated previous comments, whereby Apple has said it is not in the business of collecting people's data. He said: "When we design a new service, we try not to collect data. We're not reading your email." Cook went on to talk about PRISM in more detail, following the lead from every other technology company implicated by those now-infamous PowerPoint slides.
He makes a fair point. The data stored at Apple does not generate revenue for Apple, at the contrary of Google - where your emails are scanned for content to target ads at your eyeballs.
Now, jumping from that to "We cannot do it even if we wanted to" is quite a leap forward. I'm not sure I trust that part of the statement.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Is he required to lie about this?
Very likely, if I can read my mail, so can he. It's only logical.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Actually, it's more the distinction between "they broke into the bank vault and went through your safety deposit box" and "they pickpocketed you, and used your key and a fake ID to get into your safety deposit box."
Wrong! They have the ability to reset your password without losing your data so they would need to have either have access to the password itself or the keys to decrypt stored data.
Tim Cook Says Apple Can't Read Users' Emails,
No he didn't.
Apple previously said that even it can't access iMessage and FaceTime communications, stating that such messages and calls are not held in an "identifiable form." [Cook] claimed if the government "laid a subpoena," then Apple "can't provide it." He said, bluntly: "We don't have a key... the door is closed." He reiterated previous comments, whereby Apple has said it is not in the business of collecting people's data. He said: "When we design a new service, we try not to collect data. We're not reading your email."
He said they cannot read iMessage and FaceTime, and they are not reading your email. That is a very important distinction. It might be one he was hoping you would miss, and you did miss it, but he did not say they can't access your email.
And I'm not blowing sunshine up his skirt. I came here intending to kick him in the balls (metaphorically, of course) for lying, but he didn't.
Pro-tip: If any system includes a password recovery mechanism that allows you to get back messages, then the administrator of the password recovery system can read your back messages.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
People are conflating the "iMessage & Facetime" part of the quote with the "email" part. He says that they cannot (that is to say "do not have the ability") to read iMessage & Facetime. He then states that they do not read your email. People are pulling the "cannot" along with them when they read that sentence, but it doesn't say that they cannot read email, only that they choose to not read your email.
Your description of the iMessage encryption is good, but what the original poster said was true given a few constraints. So let me restate it in a logically consistent manner: if I can read my icloud email on any browser then apple also has the ability to read it.
But, but, maybe they encrypt it using your password on their server! If they did, "change password" would always require the old password and if you forgot your password your email would be lost forever. So, no, they're not doing that.
The bottom line is that if they can show me my email in any browser (which they can) then they can also read it trivially.
This isn't inconsistent with Cook's statement - he merely says that they choose to not do that.
Do you have ESP?