Law enforcement agencies depend on evidence to build and solve criminal
cases. But much of that evidence these days comes in the form of
electronic data in mobile devices such as smartphones, which are
increasingly protected by encryption mechanisms.
The tension between the need for law enforcement access to electronic
evidence and device manufacturers’ desire to protect the privacy of
their customers’ personal data erupted recently in a confrontation
between the FBI and Apple, Inc.
The case in question involves a single device—the iPhone 5C used by one
of the shooters in the San Bernardino, Calif., attack that killed 14
people and wounded 22 others. On Feb. 16, a federal judge in California
issued an order compelling Apple to assist the FBI in gaining access to
the data on the phone.
Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, immediately fired back in an open letter posted
to Apple’s website, arguing that the government wanted to force Apple to
build a software “backdoor,” which, if it fell into the wrong hands,
“would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s possession.”
As the week progressed, other major tech companies began to side with
Apple, fearing that helping the federal government bypass iPhone
security in this case would lead to a slippery slope in which law
enforcement would require access to all mobile devices.
“Ordering a company to hack one targeted system is clearly the first
step to ordering them to backdoor them all,” Bob Lord, Yahoo’s chief
information officer, tweeted on Friday, according to The New York Times.
By Friday, the Justice Department hit back at Apple, filing a motion to
force the company to comply with the original court order, saying its
refusal to comply was “based on concern for its business model and
public marketing strategy,” according to a report in USA Today.
Lawyers for the Justice Department argued in court documents filed
Friday that the order “does not require Apple to hack its own users or
de-crypt its own phones” and would not provide “hackers and criminals”
with access to iPhones.
Apple has until Feb. 26 to formally respond to the court order.
The company already has turned over information that Syed Rizwan
Farook, the San Bernardino shooter, stored on its cloud servers. But
based on the FBI’s request, the court ordered Apple to do three more
things:
1. Bypass or disable the feature that automatically erases all data on
the iPhone after 10 incorrect attempts to type in the 4- or 6-digit
passcode.
2. Allow the FBI to connect an external computer to the iPhone to
automatically run an unlimited number of passcode combinations in an
attempt to discover the correct passcode. A 4-digit passcode has 10,000
possible combinations, but using what is called a “brute force”
approach, an external computer could run through all 10,000 combinations
in about an hour, provided no delays are built into the encryption
software.
3. Ensure the encryption software does not introduce any delays between
passcode attempts beyond what is built into the phone’s hardware, about
80 milliseconds.
The FBI is not technically requiring Apple to create software that
hacks into an iPhone—what industry insiders call a backdoor. It is
ordering Apple to disable or bypass a technology that would destroy
evidence in a criminal case.
“First, this is not a case about security,” wrote Gus Hurwitz in a blog
at the American Enterprise Institute. “It is not about weakening
encryption that is used to keep information from the hands of those not
authorized to access it. Rather, it is about a technology that
potentially destroys data—that is designed, at least in part, to keep
data from those who are legally authorized to access it.”
But many digital privacy advocates claim the FBI’s argument is specious.
“This is functionally a backdoor, one that the court has required Apple
to create, to allow the FBI to then open using brute force,” wrote
Shahid Buttar at the Electronic Freedom Foundation. “If any black hat
hacker, foreign intelligence agency, or criminal syndicate got their
hands on this tool, they could exploit it for their own nefarious
purposes.”
Although the government has tailored the court order very narrowly and
does not believe the security and privacy implications are as dire as
many in the tech community claim, the showdown between the FBI and Apple
likely will end up in higher courts. The company is expected to invoke
the First Amendment’s free speech protections as one of its key legal
arguments, while government lawyers have claimed the All Writs Act of
1789 (a federal statue authorizing federal courts to issue orders
“necessary and appropriate in the aid of their jurisdictions”) is the
legal authority for the court order, according to Reuters.
Public opinion over the controversy remains split. In a poll conducted
last week by USA Today, 51 percent sided with the federal government, 41
percent with Apple, with the remaining undecided. As a court battle
emerges, even those at the highest levels of national security admit to
being conflicted about the circumstances surrounding this case.
“In this specific case, I’m trending toward the government, but I’ve
got to tell you in general I oppose the government’s effort,” Gen.
Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency, said in
an interview with USA Today, noting he believes FBI director James
Comey does eventually want a global “backdoor” available to law
enforcement.
“Frankly, I think on balance that actually harms American safety and
security, even though it might make Jim’s job a bit easier in some
specific circumstances,” Hayden said.
Courtesy: WORLD News Service
No comments:
Post a Comment