The time when Tim Cook objected to the FBI

In the meeting room, Cook and his team went through the line-by-line decree. They had to decide what Apple's legal situation was and how long it would take them to react. It was a stressful and high stakes meeting. Apple did not receive any warning regarding the writ, even as Cook, Apple's chief counsel, Bruce Sewell, and other people were actively discussing the case with the parties. forces of order for weeks.

The decree "was not a simple request for assistance in a criminal case," explained Sewell. "It is a forty-two-page government pleading that started with this litany of the horrible things that happened in San Bernardino. And then that. . . litany a little skewed of all the times that Apple had said no to what was described as very reasonable demands. So it's what in the law we call a verbal complaint. It was supposed to tell a story from the first day. . . it would get the public against Apple. "

The team came to the conclusion that the judge's order was a public relations gesture – a very public arm that forced Apple to comply with the FBI's requirements – and that this could be a serious problem for the company. Apple "is a well-known and incredibly powerful consumer brand. We will stand up against the FBI and say, "No, we will not give you what you want to try to treat. this terrorist threat, "said Sewell.

They knew that they had to react immediately. The brief will dominate the news the next day and Apple must get an answer. "Tim knew it was a massive decision on his part," Sewell said. It was a great moment, "a business-enterprise decision". Cook and the team remained awake all night, or 16 consecutive hours, working on their response. Cook already knew his position – Apple would refuse – but he wanted to know every angle: what was the legal status of Apple? What was his legal obligation? Was this the correct answer? How should it sound? How should he read? What was the right tone?

Cook was very concerned about the public reaction and knew that one of the results of his action might be that Apple would be accused of being on the side of the terrorists. What kind of business would not help the FBI in a terrorist investigation? From a public relations point of view, Apple has always been on the side of privacy advocates and civil liberties advocates. This case unexpectedly puts the company on the side of a terrorist. It was a whole new territory and Cook had to figure out how to do it. He had to show the world that he was defending the privacy of users rather than supporting terrorism.

At 4:30, just in time for the morning news cycle on the East Coast, Mr. Cook released an open letter to Apple customers explaining why the company would oppose the decision, which " threatens the safety of our customers. " danger that could have the government that has too much power: "The implications of the demands of the government are frightening," he wrote. "If the government could use the All Writs Act to make unlocking your iPhone easier, it would have the power to access anyone's device to capture their data."

Apple was working with the FBI to try to unlock the phone, providing data and making engineers available, Cook said. "But now, the US government has asked us something we simply do not have and that we consider too dangerous to create. . . a backdoor to the iPhone. He continued, "In the wrong hands, this software, which does not exist today, would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in the possession of anyone." This could have potentially disastrous consequences, leaving users powerless to stop any unwanted invasion of privacy. "The FBI can use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: creating a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control ".

Cook then accused the government of attempting to force Apple "to hack its own users and undermine the security advances that have lasted for decades and protect its customers. . . sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals ". It would be a slippery slope from there. The government could then ask Apple to create surveillance software to intercept messages, access medical records or financial data, or locate users. Cook needed to draw a line. He thought the FBI's intentions were good, but it was his responsibility to protect Apple users. "We can find no precedent in which an American company would be forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack," he wrote. Although he struggled to resist the orders of the US government and knew he would face retaliation, he had to take a stand.

Extended debate

The magistrate's order highlighted a long-standing debate between Apple and the authorities on encryption. Apple and the government have been in disagreement for more than a year since the launch of Apple's encrypted operating system, iOS 8, late 2014.

iOS 8 has added a much stronger encryption than the one previously seen in smartphones. It encrypted all user data (phone call records, messages, photos, contacts, etc.) using the user's code. The encryption was so powerful that even Apple could not break it. The security of previous devices was much weaker and there were different ways to introduce them, but Apple could no longer access locked devices running iOS 8, even though the law enforcement forces had access to them. a valid warrant. "Unlike our competitors, Apple can not bypass your access code and therefore can not access that data," writes the company on its website. "It is therefore not technically possible for us to meet the government's mandate to extract this data from devices in their possession on iOS 8".

The update had repeatedly prevented the investigators. At the press conference in New York two days after Cook's letter to San Bernardino, authorities said they had been locked out on 175 iPhones. For more than a year, law enforcement at the highest levels have been lobbying Apple for a solution. "When the FBI filed its case in San Bernardino, I think a lot of people in the public have seen this as the beginning of something," Sewell said. "When in reality it was a long point leading to that, with a lot of activity preceding the actual decision of [FBI director James] Come drop.

Sewell explained that he, Cook, and other members of Apple's legal team had met regularly with officials from the FBI, the Department of Justice and the Attorney General in Washington and Cupertino. Cook, Sewell and others had met not only James Comey, but also Attorney General Eric Holder, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director Bob Mueller (Comey's predecessor) and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

Cook and Sewell met Eric Holder and then Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole at the end of 2014, and FBI agents told them that they were "interested in having access to mass phones." It was well before the San Bernardino attack. and Apple made it clear from the outset that they would not grant the FBI access to hacking Apple users' phones. Cook and Sewell told Holder and Cole that they "did not think it was an appropriate request to address a society whose primary concern was the protection of all citizens." They had a similar conversation with Lynch and Yates.

Sewell stated that during the discussions, it was clear that some law enforcement officials were not convinced by the broader social issues. Some were intellectually sympathetic to their position, but as officers of the court, they insisted that they needed access to pursue business. But Sewell said Cook was convinced that security and privacy were a cornerstone. Cook was adamant that any attempt to circumvent security would be very dangerous. Once the backdoor is created, it can easily be disclosed, stolen or abused.

But when the case San Bernardino was retained, the police saw an opportunity to force the hand of Apple. "At the FBI level, the feeling was that it was the perfect storm," Sewell said. "We are now in a tragic situation. We have a phone We have a dead assailant. This is the moment when we will push it. And that's when the FBI decided to drop [the writ ordering Apple to create a backdoor]. "

The storm of fire

As Cook and his team predicted, the judge's order sparked a media storm. History has dominated the news all week and will continue to make headlines for two months. Apple's response has been strongly condemned by law enforcement, politicians and experts, such as California senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, who has called on Apple to take part terrorist attack in my state "and threatened legislation.

At a news conference in Manhattan, William Bratton, police commissioner in New York, also criticized Apple's policy. He waved a phone involved in a separate investigation into the shooting of two police officers. "Despite a court order, we can not access this iPhone," he told reporters. "Two of my officers were shot, [and] our inability to use this device is an obstacle for the future. "

A few days later, Donald Trump, then presidential candidate, called for a boycott against Apple at a campaign rally on Pawleys Island, South Carolina. Trump even accused Cook of being politically motivated: "Tim Cook is trying to make a big figure, probably to show how liberal he is." Trump was playing in front of his conservative audience, trying to make him look like a Liberal villain and using tactical fear to give the impression that Apple was on the side of the terrorists, he tweeted new attacks on Apple, again calling for a boycott until the company passed the information to the FBI.

With so many politicians and officials against Apple, the American public is also aligned against it. A Pew poll found that 51% of respondents said that Apple should unlock the iPhone to help the FBI, and that only 38% support Cook's position. But a few days later, another poll by Reuters / Ipsos came to a different conclusion. According to this poll, 46% agreed with Apple's position, 35% disagreed and 20% did not know. The difference was attributed to the wording of the question: the Pew survey question gave less information about Apple's position and appeared to be biased in favor of the FBI. An analysis of emoticons used in social media resulted in a similar mixed conclusion. By analyzing the positive and negative emotions in people's tweets (smiles, frowning, applause, thumbs down and thumbs down), a marketing firm called Convince & Convert found a fairly even split of Apple's supporters and supporters of the FBI. Although this approach was less than scientific, it was clear that the public was divided. This experience was unprecedented and many did not know what to think.

And finally, everything was not bad. Cook's position also seems to have an influence on public opinion. In hundreds of responses to Trump's tweets, many citizens have defended Apple's actions. Trump's tweets have tended to bring out vexing views, but most of the reactions have been directed towards Apple's defenses. One respondent tweeted: "The boycott of Apple products is absurd. Breaking a phone, none of us will have privacy. We can no longer trust the government! Several personalities also expressed their support for Cook and Apple, including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. the New York Times The editorial board also weighed in on Apple's side. In an editorial titled "Why is Apple right to challenge an order to help the FBI," they wrote: "There is a very good chance that such a law, intended to facilitate the work of the police, make individuals, businesses and the government itself much less secure. "Obviously, Cook and his team are in agreement and squat to continue the fight.

The war room

Over the next two months, the executive floor of One Infinite Loop has evolved into a 24/7 meeting room with staff members sending messages and responding to requests from reporters. A PR representative said he sometimes sent several updates a day with up to 700 journalists. This contrasts sharply with Apple's usual public relations strategy, which consists of occasional press releases and systematically ignoring calls and emails from reporters.

Cook also felt that he needed to rally the troops to keep up morale at the highest point when the company was attacked. In an email addressed to Apple employees, titled "Thank you for your support", he wrote: "This case involves more than just a phone or a single survey." He continued, "The issue is the data security of hundreds of millions of law-abiding people and the creation of a dangerous precedent that threatens everyone's civil liberties." It worked. Apple trusted their leader to make the decision that suited them not only for themselves but also for the general public.

Cook was very concerned about how Apple would be perceived during this media storm. He wanted to take this opportunity to inform the public about personal security, privacy and encryption. "I think a lot of journalists have seen a new version, a new face of Apple," said the public relations officer, who asked to remain anonymous. "And Tim decided to do that. Very different from what we did in the past. We sometimes sent e-mails to reporters three times a day to keep them informed. "

Outside of Apple's walls, Cook has launched a charm offensive. Eight days after the publication of his letter on privacy, he sat for a prime time interview with ABC News. Sitting in his office at One Infinite Loop, he sincerely explained the position of Apple. This was the "most important [interview] he is given as Apple's CEO, "said the Washington Post. "Cook answered questions with raw belief that was even more emphatic than usual," the paper writes. "He used insightful and slender language, calling the demand" the software equivalent of cancer "and speaking of" fundamental freedoms ".

He said he was ready to fight until the Supreme Court. It was clear that the leader of Apple would not give up his beliefs, even when the situation became very difficult.

The interview went well and, back at Apple's headquarters, the combat room staff felt it was crucial. They thought Cook had done a great job, explaining not only Apple's point of view, but also showing the world that he was a compassionate and ethical leader that users could trust to preserve their privacy. "This is not a rogue company executive who is looking to make a lot of money," Sewell said. "It's someone you can trust." Someone who does what he says he's going to do. And do not do malicious or malicious things but try to be fair, try to be a good administrator of society and mean what he says and do things in which he believes. "

Apple employees knew Tim Cook for many years, but the public was starting to get a glimpse for the first time. It was a win for Apple, because many members of the public had not initially approved Apple's decision to keep information on the iPhone away from the FBI. Apple won another victory in late February when a New York court dismissed an FBI application ordering Apple to open the phone of a minor drug dealer. Judge James Orenstein concurred with Apple's position that the All Writs Act could not be used to order the company to open its products. "The implications of the government's position are so profound, both in terms of what it would allow today and what it entails for the intention of Congress
in 1789, he says.

Although this case is not binding on the San Bernardino court, Sewell said he provided the company with essential ammunition for the press. "For us, it was very, very important," he said. "It then allowed us to consult the press and contact people who had generally been detractors and who said," This is not Apple commercialism. It's not that Apple is a bad actor. It is a position of principle and the only judge in the country who has examined it agrees with us. Cook and Sewell had the assurance that with Judge Orenstein by their side, others would be soon.

No privacy in America

As the battle progressed, the support of privacy advocates increased, but public opinion on Apple's decision was still largely divided. An NBC poll of 1,000 Americans in March 2016 found that 47% of respondents thought the company should not cooperate with the FBI, while 42% felt it should. Forty-four percent of those polled said they fear the government will go too far and violate the privacy of its citizens if Apple met its requirements.

The United Nations has expressed its support for Apple, special rapporteur David Kaye claiming that encryption is "fundamental to the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age" . Kaye went on to state that "the FBI's order involved security, and therefore freedom of expression, of many unknown but likely numerous, those who rely on secure communications. But the FBI continued its public relations offensive, while then director, James Comey, had told participants at a conference on cyber security organized by Boston College no place out of court reach. . . . Absolute privacy does not exist in America. "

The lowest point for Apple was when Attorney General Loretta Lynch criticized the company during a speech at the RSA Security Conference in San Francisco. Lynch has essentially accused Apple of defying the law and the courts. His comments were widely commented and presented to the evening news. "Nothing could be further from the truth," said Sewell. "That the attorney general goes on public television and says," Apple breaks a court order and therefore acts illegally, "is inflammatory. . . . Many media have equated this with the Attorney General saying that Apple was. . . disregard a court order. But there was no judicial order. The judge asks Apple to help him in this case; it did not force the company to do it, a distinction that has been lost – or ignored – by many critics. Apple was not breaking any laws and was determined to fight for users' privacy, despite strong government pressure.

The case is abandoned

Six weeks after the judge filed the motion against Apple on March 28, Sewell and the legal team traveled to San Bernardino to plead their case before the judge. Cook was preparing to come down the next day to testify.

But that night, the FBI withdrew, asking the court to indefinitely suspend the lawsuits against Apple. The FBI said it managed to access the data stored in the phone, but did not explain how. It was later revealed that the FBI had access to Farook's iPhone with the help of the Israeli criminal forensics company, Celebrite. At a Senate hearing in May, Senator Dianne Feinstein revealed that it cost the FBI $ 900,000. Officials had previously acknowledged that the FBI had found no information they did not possess and that there was no evidence of contact with ISIS or other supporters. Sewell explained that the FBI had to abandon the battle with Apple because it could access the iPhone without the help of Apple. When it turned out that they could actually access the phone, the case fell apart.

The privacy advocates celebrated the end of the affair and the apparent victory of Apple. "The credibility of the FBI has just reached a new floor," said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, a group of activists who promotes privacy protection online. "They have repeatedly lied to the court and the public in search of a dangerous precedent that would have made us all less safe. Fortunately, Internet users have mobilized quickly and powerfully to raise public awareness of the dangers of backdoors. Together, we forced the government to back down. "

But Cook was personally disappointed that the case did not go to trial. Even if Apple had "won" and would not have to create the backdoor, nothing had really been solved. "Tim was a little disappointed that we did not get a resolution," said Sewell. He "really felt it would have been fair and that it would have been appropriate for us to test these theories in court. . . . [Though] the situation that remained to us in the end was not so bad for us, he would have preferred to go ahead and judge the case. The question remains unresolved to this day. It could be reactivated at any time and probably under the Trump administration. It was just another skirmish in the war for privacy and security, and as technology evolves, the battle is likely to erupt again.

Of Tim Cook: The genius that pushed Apple to the next level by Leander Kahney, to be released April 16 by Portfolio, imprinted by Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. © 2019

When you buy something using the retail links of our stories, we can earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about how it works.

More great cable stories