Apple Inc. admitted that it handed its customers' data to the U.S. government officials. as revealed from its report on Government Information Requests.

But, first and foremost, Apple clarifies that its customers' privacy were in its utmost concern.

"We believe that our customers have a right to understand how their personal information is handled, and we consider it our responsibility to provide them with the best privacy protections available. Apple has prepared this report on the requests we receive from governments seeking information about individual users or devices in the interest of transparency for our customers around the world. Perhaps most important, our business does not depend on collecting personal data. We have no interest in amassing personal information about our customers. We protect personal conversations by providing end-to-end encryption over iMessage and FaceTime. We do not store location data, Maps searches, or Siri requests in any identifiable form."

Hence, Apple had only disclosed information to the U.S. government 1,000 times in the span of the first six months of 2013.

In the report, Apple clarified that the U.S. restricts the company from disclosing, "except in broad ranges," all government requests received by Apple. The U.S. government also prohibited Apple to specify the number of accounts affected because of the government's request.

During the first six months of 2013 through which Apple based its report, the company received 1,000 to 2,000 government requests. These requests compelled the company to access data from its 2000 to 3000 user accounts. These data were obtained from iCloud email, contacts, calendar and Photo Stream.

"The most common account requests involve robberies and other crimes or requests from law enforcement officers searching for missing persons or children, finding a kidnapping victim, or hoping to prevent a suicide. In very rare cases, we are asked to provide stored photos or email. We consider these requests very carefully and only provide account content in extremely limited circumstances," Apple stated in the report.

The U.S. government had also requests data to be retrieved through Apple devices.

Apple said that it received 3,542 requests to retrieve information from devices. Apple provided the government at least 88 per cent out of the 3,542 requests.

Admittedly, Apple was able to provide data from Apple devices since "device requests never include national security-related requests."

Apple stressed that it aimed to disclose as minimal information as it can possibly can to protect its customers' privacy.

"As we have explained, any government agency demanding customer content from Apple must get a court order," the company said in the report. When we receive such a demand, our legal team carefully reviews the order. If there is any question about the legitimacy or scope of the court order, we challenge it. Only when we are satisfied that the court order is valid and appropriate do we deliver the narrowest possible set of information responsive to the request."

In its aim to reveal more government requests to promote customer transparency, Apple filed an amicus brief with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA Court.

Florian Mueller of Foss Patents was able to obtain a copy of Apple's amicus brief.

In the amicus brief, Apple "sought permission from the FBI to disclose the aggregate number of national security requests that it received and the number of accounts affected by each applicable national security authority (e.g., NSL, FISA, and Section 702 of FISA)."

But as stated in the brief, in mid-June 2013, "the General Counsel of the FBI refused the request ... the FBI required [it] to group the receipt of national security requests with requests from police investigating robberies and other crimes, searching for missing children, or hoping to prevent a suicide ... must use ranges of 1,000 rather than disclose a precise number ... the FBI did not identify anything in the law that authorizes the Government to prohibit disclosure of the aggregate number of national security requests received by Apple; portrayed its decision as an exercise of its discretion not to enforce the statute against Apple specifically."

Apple alleged that this was a "deliberate attempt to reduce public knowledge as to the activities of the Government."