Apple Would Like to Make This Perfectly Clear: It's Not Making 'Accommodations' to China

Apple would like to set the government straight on how it does business in the world’s largest market: It hasn’t made any “special accommodations” to the Chinese government.

The Justice Department sought, in its most recent court filing, to undercut Apple’s argument that helping U.S. investigators hack into an iPhone used by one of the attackers in San Bernardino would leave it vulnerable to similar requests from other governments.

The U.S. government argued Apple has already made “accommodations” to gain access to the huge and growing Chinese market, citing news accounts of the company modifying its iPhones for sale on the mainland to use a wireless standard required by the Chinese government and storing users’ data on servers within the country.

Apple took issue with the government’s attempts to disregard the “obvious international implications of its demand.”

The company acknowledged it responded to Chinese government demands for information about some 4,398 devices in the first six months of 2015 (the U.S. government had 9,717 in the same period). But it notes that government has not demanded of Apple what the U.S. is now requesting in court: That it write software to disable security features on the iPhone.

“Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics, which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government,” Apple writes in a filing Tuesday with federal court.

Apple also says it uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world. It has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a back door to any of its products or services, or provided any government with its proprietary source code for the iOS mobile operating system.

“We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow,” Apple software chief Craig Federighi said in a court filing.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via