It has been several years since an intense debate began around Apple and iPhone Privacy. However, at Apple there is no debate, no matter how much the FBI itself asks for it. However, the president-elect of the United States had already warned during his first term of a project which, who knows, could perhaps resume in the next four years.
Precedents of the controversy. In 2015, a shooting occurred in San Bernardino that left 16 dead and more than twenty injured. The FBI, upon learning that the perpetrator owned an iPhone, asked Apple for help in unlocking it and, now with full access to its data, completing the investigation.
Apple categorically refused. Apple has privacy as its flag and prioritizes making the iPhone a secure and transparent device, trying to release regular updates that eliminate vulnerabilities. And that’s something that they put above all else and told the FBI that later. The FBI managed to access the terrorist’s iPhone, but by other means which in no way had the collaboration of Apple.
Why opening iPhone doors isn’t such a good idea. The discovery of criminal networks seems and is a compelling reason to think that it is a good idea to have a backdoor in iOS accessible to experts from the FBI and other security forces. However, in the background there is an even bigger problem.
And if you have a backdoor on the iPhone, it is possible that it will be known to not always well-meaning cybersecurity experts. This would expose Apple’s system to cybercriminals who could cause a lot of damage by knowing the system’s weaknesses, affecting users of all types. This is exactly what Apple doesn’t want.
What Donald Trump says. In 2020, while still president, Trump posted a tweet in which he charged that despite helping Apple on trade issues, they had refused to collaborate on cases like Apple’s. San Bernardino.
Among these, he urged the company led by Tim Cook to “step forward” for the good of the country. The legislature ended months later and under Joe Biden, no similar demands were made. But the tycoon’s return to the White House in January could revisit this issue.
What if the laws changed? With the law in hand, Apple has little to do with this matter. As already happened during the San Bernardino episode, Apple has no obligation to give access to the data to the authorities. However, as we are already seeing in the European Union on other issues, if the law changes and requires it, they will have no choice.
Of course, these prospects still seem uncertain. For the moment, the future Trump-Vance administration has not yet expressed itself. And if they finally adopt such a law, they will need the approval of a Senate which, although it seems destined to turn red with the victory of the Republicans (53 against 44 for the Democrats at the time of closing of this information), needs to have more support.
It will be January 20, 2025 that Donald Trump will take office as President of the United States.
Trump promised “protection” to Apple. Precisely in light of Apple’s battles in Europe, the already elected President of the United States acknowledged a call with Tim Cook during the campaign asking him for help to face a European Union that once again threatens them with sanctions at the expense of the DMA. According to the tycoon, he responded by saying that “we are not going to let them profit from our businesses.” And nothing else. It will be in the coming months that we will begin to see how Apple fares with the new Trump administration.
In Applesfera | Chinese hackers have put US security on alert. The conclusion is clear: Apple was right
In Applesfera | My Apple accounts, an impassable wall: this is how I manage my passwords and other settings to avoid hacking
