 |
| Trump condemns Apple for refusing to decrypt the iPhone |
U.S. President Donald Trump fought at the FBI and asked an Apple iPhone maker to help unlock two iPhones that the gunman in charge of Pensacola shooting last month used.
Trump criticized Apple for accusing Apple of refusing to decrypt the phone despite government commercial support, and Trump comes from an investigation into the killing of three Americans in Pensacola, Florida, last month.
This episode represents the last wave of data protection debates between technology companies such as Apple and Facebook and the authorities, while technology companies say strong encryption can protect users ’privacy and security, while law enforcement officials claim criminals use technology. Evading judicial sanctions.
Law enforcement agencies are calling on technology companies to provide a way to resolve encryption using many important issues, such as last year's Pensacola shooting and San Bernardino fire in California.
Trump criticized Apple: We helped Apple in circulation and many other problems, but we refused to decipher the calls used by killers, drug dealers, and other violent criminals, and added: "You need our support immediately, and help our great powers."
Apple says it cannot access the password-encrypted data stored on the iPhone, and has to create its own tool, known in the tech industry as the "back door".
However, the company can forward the data stored on cloud storage servers to law enforcement officials. This usually includes backups of the iPhone, including iMessages.
The company refused to describe Attorney General Bill Barr and did not provide any major help after contacting him to help the FBI unlock the two iPhone devices involved in the Pensacola case in December. In response to seven separate legal inquiries from federal investigators. From the day of the shooting
The New York Times reported that Apple is working internally to share this post with third-party security companies. She says: Tim Cook's team is now seeking to direct the current contribution to an external decision. It did not affect the company and violated its security, even during setup. Possible legal battle over this issue.