So why did Apple work with Trump administration?

[rogue emissary]

During Obama's term, Apple was very publicly fighting the Obama DOJ for just about any of their legal request for customer data, etc. Now we find out they stayed quiet and followed court orders. Allowing the Trump administration to gain access to U.S. congresspeople, staff, and family.


What changed from them being privacy advocates against government intrusion. Too rolling over and keeping mum on Trump seeking private data????

[StarfishSaver]

1. They didn't "work with" them

They were issued a grand jury jury subpoena. They didn't have a choice.

[FoxNewsSucks]

3. So it's another example

of republicons playing hardball, kicking ass, and taking immediate action and Democrats "asking nicely for help"?

Looks to me more like it's just a corporation helping whom they think will help them most.

[StarfishSaver]

5. No. That's not what it is

It's an example of a corrupt Republican administration abusing its power, something that we should never admire or emulate.

You don't seem to understand how a grand jury subpoena works. You can learn more about it here: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury

[FoxNewsSucks]

9. re: post #6

Why did Apple fight Obama on everything and roll over for "Tim Apple"'s buddy tRump?

Save you snark. I understand subpoenas, and can see the clear difference between willing cooperation and active objection.

[StarfishSaver]

15. There is indeed a difference between objecting to an administration's regulatory policy and

defying a criminal grand jury subpoena, under a gag order and under penalty of immediate incarceration for contempt of court for failure to comply.

[FoxNewsSucks]

18. Point noted,

so why are Democrats not using the same tactic to prosecute actual criminals? Why do they just "ask" in a way that can be ignored?

[StarfishSaver]

22. Grand jury subpoenas are issued in secret, so we don't know that DOJ isn't issuing them

and they very likely are since we do know that grand juries have been impaneled and are hearing evidence.

[triron]

38. How could they get a Grand Jury subpoena on Schiff? Come on.

[StarfishSaver]

45. You really need to read the NY Times article before you try to discuss this any further

[LymphocyteLover]

61. I read it and it didn't explain the grand jury thing

[StarfishSaver]

62. From the article

In 2017 and 2018, a grand jury subpoenaed Apple and another internet service provider for the records of the people associated with the Intelligence Committee.

[LymphocyteLover]

60. that's what I don't understand

it's FUBAR

[brooklynite]

20. Name a legal summons that Apple "fought" during the Obama Administration.

[FoxNewsSucks]

26. If that's the case,

then why was there not a legal summons or subpoena?

Instead of a polite "request"?

[brooklynite]

29. You mean a legal summons like a "subpoena"?

Trump administration subpoenaed Apple for lawmakers' data -New York Times

The U.S. Justice Department under former President Donald Trump subpoenaed Apple Inc (AAPL.O) for data from the accounts of at least two Democrats on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee in an attempt to find out who was behind leaks of classified information, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-subpoenaed-apple-lawmakers-data-new-york-times-2021-06-11/

[triron]

39. Why did Apple comply? Republicans didn't.

[brooklynite]

41. So its okay to act illegally as long as someone else does?

[StarfishSaver]

46. What Republican refused to comply with a grand jury subpoena?

Be specific. Give us names.

[Ellipsis]

30. Apple has more lawyers than cicadas currently in D.C.

Part of Apple's selling point is privacy.... unlike something like Amazon's "sidewalk." I'm sure they relented because they had no other choice.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Because the Obama administration didn't abuse power the way the Trump administration did

You can't on the one hand get upset by what the Trump DOJ did on the one hand, and then turn around and complain that the Obama Administration should have done the same thing, but didn't.

[FoxNewsSucks]

37. I'm not complaining that Obama didn't act illegally,

but if there was a legitimate reason, why didn't they issue the same kind of legally-binding subpoena?

Subpoena for abusive reason vs NO subpoena for actual investigation. See the point?

[StarfishSaver]

44. Administrations don't go around issuing subpoenas

And you have yet to identify what investigation of Apple they were conducting that required a grand jury or the issuance of a grand jury subpoena.

It sounds like you're just determined to make negative assumptions about the Obama administration without any knowledge or information - meanwhile, people are trying to discuss an unprecedented, outrageous abuse of power by the Trump administration while you keep wanting to argue about why the Obama administration didn't employ their tactics.

See the point?

[USALiberal]

63. You need to do a lot more reading!!! Nt

[rogue emissary]

4. true, but Obama went through many of the same legal actions and they fought them in court.

[StarfishSaver]

7. What grand jury subpoenas under Obama are you referring to?

[rogue emissary]

10. There were multiple case of the Obama DOJ wanting and having to fight Apple to get information.

Maybe Obama's DOJ didn't play dirty, but why did Apple not go public with what Trumps' DOJ wanted?

When there was that shooting and DOJ wanted access to the shooter's iPhone. They fought it out in the media how they weren't going to comply.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Again I ask - what subpoenas did the Obama administration issue to Apple that Apple fought and

refused to comply with? "Fighting it out in the media" is not the same as defying a grand jury subpoena.

If you read the NY Times article, you'd have the answer to your question: a gag order was imposed on Apple so they could not disclose what was happening.

[rogue emissary]

23. And Apple always follows the laws?

Frankly, Apple has broken a number of EU and China labor laws.

[StarfishSaver]

25. Nice try

You don't have an answer.

Perhaps you should stop repeating the claim if you can't back it up.

[rogue emissary]

28. I keep repeating that they were very public in 08 to 16.

You suggest that they would be breaking the law if they went public. I point out that they've broken the laws when it suited them.

My question stands why were they so public fighting Obama's DOJ. Yet, Trump was going after political enemies and they were silenced by a gag order.

[StarfishSaver]

32. What criminal laws did Apple break that would have resulted in them being jailed immediately?

Please be specific.

[Ocelot II]

33. They weren't under a gag order at that time. And if you're under a gag order

you can't fight it publicly because you're under a gag order!

[StarfishSaver]

34. Sigh

[Ocelot II]

35. Yup.

[rogue emissary]

40. SO Apple has always followed every law that been imposed on them?

I'm not saying there aren't serious repercussions to a gag order. DU has cheered multiple companies that fought the Trump administration when we didn't agree with what Trump is doing.

Yuu talk as if Apple doesn't routinely break laws just like Google, Amazon, Tesla, etc. They all break them till they get caught or the press is so bad they have to stop.

[Ocelot II]

42. They didn't this time. Should they have?

[rogue emissary]

47. Honestly, it doesn't matter what I want them to do.

I just wished they fought Trump as loudly as they fought Obama.

That's all I'm getting at.

[StarfishSaver]

49. And you don't seem to understand the difference between publicly objecting to regulatory policy

and defying a grand jury subpoena while under a court-imposed gag order.

Your continued insistence on equating the two situations, despite having your misunderstanding debunked repeatedly is pretty remarkable.

[Ocelot II]

51. The reason they didn't fight Trump as loudly as they fought Obama

(if, indeed, they did, as you have cited no specific examples of this) is BECAUSE THEY WERE UNDER A GAG ORDER! You can't be "loud" under a gag order and you can't fight a gag order in public because that's what a gag order does! Like Fight Club, the first rule of gag orders is you don't talk about the gag order. So what you're really saying is that this is all really Apple's fault and not Trump's DoJ's fault, because even though they've done illegal things before, they didn't do it this time??

[StarfishSaver]

52. This is an explosive news story with serious ramifications.

There is probably a benefit in some quarters to diverting our attention by encouraging arguments about irrelevant issues like why Apple complied with the subpoena ...

[Ocelot II]

55. Good point. I'm done trying to explain where explanation seems unwanted.

[StarfishSaver]

56. Yep.

A thread full of answers to the OP's question ... And yet ...

[rogue emissary]

54. I'm not blaming them for what Trump DOJ wanted.

I'm saying it's easy to be privacy advocates against Obama's DOJ and have a lot of people applauded them for it. Now, where's the scorn for not fighting Trump's DOJ?

Yes, gag orders are big deals, but you can fight them. You will get in trouble for breaking them. Of course, we've seen private citizens like Roger Stone not comply with a Judge's gag order and we didn't execute him.

If they broke the gag order would it have ended Apple as a corporation?

[StarfishSaver]

58. You want Apple to break the law using Roger Stone as the model?

Good night.

[Ocelot II]

27. There are serious penalties for defying subpoenas and violating gag orders.

Trump's DoJ would have made sure those penalties were imposed if Apple had either failed to comply with the subpoenas or violated the gag order that went with them.

[Ellipsis]

36. name them... specifically.

You mean their supply chain vendors broke the laws.

[LiberalFighter]

53. Facts are very important. And understanding the process. You are very patient.

[Blue Owl]

2. Well that ain't fucking cool

Despite their progressive brand, I am sure there are some Repukes in the upper management at Apple…

[Ocelot II]

11. When you get a grand jury subpoena you don't have a lot of choice.

[MenloParque]

12. Yup!

I worked at Apple in CUPERTINO for 17 years. Most of my staff of Senior Engineers were hardcore gun humpers, libertarians and right wingers. I hoped the culture would shift due to younger engineers coming on board…nope these guys freakin love and know everything about shit that blows up or causes destruction. Don’t miss any of those Silicon Valley nerds.

[Elwood P Dowd]

13. CEO Tim Cook has always supported Democrats, and raised millions for Obama and Hillary.

He is also gay. Al Gore has been on their board for years. The repukes that show up on Apple forums are always complaining about them being too liberal.

[StarfishSaver]

17. There you go with those stubborn facts ...

[rogue emissary]

43. here's some more facts. . .

Apple’s Tim Cook has spread his political money to both sides of the aisle

Tim Cook will hold a fundraiser for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Wednesday night, but the Apple CEO has proven bipartisan with his political cash.

Cook has personally given $10,800 to Republican candidates and joint fundraising committees and $10,400 to committees on the Democratic side since 2008, according to reports filed to the Federal Election Commission. While he is by no means a large donor, Cook has increased his activity in this election cycle, with about 90 percent of those donations coming since April 2015.

Cook hosted a fundraiser for Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan earlier this year, giving $7,100 to his campaign and a joint committee with the GOP in June. Last year, he gave maximum $2,700 donations to the campaigns of GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.


Donors often give to both sides of the aisle, even in the Democratic-leaning world of Silicon Valley. Cook may most obviously support Republican policy on corporate taxes, as he has criticized the U.S. business tax rate as Apple parks $215 billion in cash overseas.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment on why Cook is raising money for Clinton or has increased his donation activity this election cycle.

Cook’s predecessor, late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, was a frequent Democratic donor in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He gave to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Ted Kennedy, among others.

As for Silicon Valley as a whole, technology is not among the top 10 industry donors to either Clinton or Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel backs Trump and spoke at the Republican National Convention, but the FEC lists no Thiel donations to Trump.


https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/24/apples-tim-cook-has-spread-his-political-money-to-both-sides-of-the-aisle.html

[StarfishSaver]

48. Irrelevant facts that have absolutely nothing to do with Apple complying with a grand jury subpoena

If you think the fact that the billionaire CEO of a multi-billion dollar company donated a total of less than $25,000 to a handful of Republican candidates over an 8-year period (while giving Democrats considerably more than that) is evidence that the company complied with a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury only because it wanted to help a Republican administration, there's probably nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.

[rogue emissary]

50. you deemed them relevant.

I don't think they are pro-Trump or any political figure. I do think they got on a high horse to stand up to two black men Obama and Holder. Now we know they rolled over for two white men Trump and Sessions.

[soothsayer]

6. Let's see. "Tim Apple" was with trumpy in March 2019

Wonder when all this went down.

[Ocelot II]

8. The records were subpoenaed. That's not "working with" the Trump administration.

[rogue emissary]

14. again I'm asking why didn't we know this when Trump DOJ made these request.

Every time Obama's DOJ tried gaining their customer info we knew about it through press releases they sent out.

I never remember the Obama DOJ going public with their request. They tried and fail to keep it quiet and Apple made sure it wasn't.

[StarfishSaver]

19. They didn't talk about it because of a GAG ORDER

And you keep talking about what Obama's DOJ did, but have not offered a single actual example

[Ocelot II]

21. Gag order, like they did wrt CNN.

Brian Williams just now said Apple was gagged and prevented from saying anything about it publicly; being discussed right now on MSNBC. Does that answer your question? The gag order finally expired and the current DoJ didn't renew it, which is why we know about it now. Apple spilled the beans because it could finally do so legally.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

24. #16.

[cilla4progress]

57. Cuz

they're everywhere.

You know who.

[Sgent]

59. Because the Trump DOJ supeaned

stuff that Apple could actually provide -- backups of iphones made to iCloud.

Obama's DOJ did not issue a subpoena in some high profile cases, they issued a Writ under the All Writs Act trying to compel Apple to write software to crack their own encryption on their phone, and Apple refused. They did however comply with the O administration's subpoena of backups (which were stale).

There has been no evidence presented that Apple helped anyone actually crack an iPhone (although they have been cracked by 3rd parties).