Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Apple Versus U.S. Justice Department Over iPhone Encryption

San Bernardino Gunman Apple U.S. Justice Department Privacy iPhone FBI encryption court case

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,593 posts

Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone

 

http://www.nytimes.c...rdino.html?_r=0

 

 

WASHINGTON — Last month, some of President Obama’s top intelligence advisers met in Silicon Valley with Apple’s chief, Timothy D. Cook, and  other technology leaders in what seemed to be a public rapprochement in their long-running dispute over the encryption safeguards built into their devices.

 

But behind the scenes, relations were tense, as lawyers for the Obama administration and Apple held closely guarded discussions for over two months about one particularly urgent case: The F.B.I. wanted Apple to help “unlock” an iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino , Calif., in December, but Apple was resisting.

 

When the talks collapsed, a federal magistrate judge, at the Justice Department’s request, ordered Apple to bypass security functions on the phone….

 

“This Apple case really goes right to the heart of the encryption issue,” said Ira Rubinstein, a senior fellow at the New York University Information Law Institute, “and in some ways, this was a fight  that was inevitable.”

 

 

This is not the first time a technology company has been ordered to effectively decrypt its own product. But industry experts say it is the most significant because of Apple’s global profile, the invasive steps it says are being demanded and the brutality of the San Bernardino attacks.

Law enforcement officials who support the F.B.I.’s position said that the impasse with Apple provided an ideal test case to move from an abstract debate over the balance between national security and privacy to a concrete one.The F.B.I. has been unable to get into the phone used by Syed Rizwan Farook , who was killed by the police along with his wife after they attacked Mr. Farook’s co-workers at a holiday gathering. Reynaldo Tariche, an F.B.I. agent on Long Island, said, “The worst-case scenario has come true.”

 

Mr. Tariche, who is president of the agents’ association, added, “As more of these devices come to market, this touches all aspects of the cases that we’re working on. ”Magistrate Judge  Sheri Pym of the Federal District Court for the District of Central California issued her order Tuesday afternoon, after the F.B.I. said it had been unable to get access to the data on its own and needed Apple’s technical assistance.

Mr. Cook, the chief executive at Apple, responded Wednesday morning with a blistering, 1,100-word letter to Apple customers, warning of the “chilling” breach of privacy posed by the government’s demands. He maintained that the order would effectively require it to create a “backdoor” to get around its own safeguards, and Apple vowed to appeal the ruling by next week. “The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe” Mr. Cook said.

 

 Apple argues that the software the F.B.I. wants it to create does not exist. But technologists say the company can do it…

…others at the White House viewed legislation as potentially perilous. Late last year, Mr. Obama refused to back any legislation requiring decryption, leaving a court fight likely. 

 

The Justice Department showed no sign of backing down Wednesday… The dispute could initiate legislation in Congress, with Republicans and Democrats alike criticizing Apple’s stance on Wednesday and calling for tougher decryption requirements. Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential contender, also attacked Apple on Fox News, asking, “Who do they think they are?”  

But Apple had many defenders of its own among privacy and consumer advocates, who praised Mr. Cook for standing up to what they saw as government overreach. Many of the company’s defenders argued that the types of government surveillance operations exposed in 2013 by Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, have prompted technology companies to build tougher encryption safeguards in their products because of the privacy demands of their customers..

 

Privacy advocates and others said they worried that if the F.B.I. succeeded in getting access to the software overriding Apple’s encryption, it would create easy access for the government in many future investigations. “This is not the last step in the journey,” said Robert Cattanach, a former Justice Department lawyer... “The next thing you know, they’ll be in the back door of these systems.”  

 

…The draft legislation would have covered app developers like WhatsApp and large companies like Google and Apple, according to current and former officials involved in the process. There is no debate that, when armed with a court order, the government can get text messages and other data stored in plain text. Far less certain was whether the government could use a court order to force a company to write software or redesign its system to decode encrypted data. A federal law would make that authority clear, they said. But the disclosures of government surveillance by Mr. Snowden changed the privacy debate, and the Obama administration decided not to move on the proposed legislation. It has not been revived.

 

 The legal issues raised by the judge’s order... involve statutory interpretation, rather than constitutional rights, and they could end up before the Supreme Court.... the F.B.I., instead of asking Congress to pass legislation resolving the encryption fight, has proposed what appears to be a novel reading of the All Writs Act of 1789.

 

 

The law lets judges “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The government says the law gives broad latitude to judges to require “third parties” to execute court orders. It has cited a 1977 ruling requiring phone companies to help set up a pen register, a device that records all numbers called from a particular phone line. Apple argues that the scope of the act has strict limits. In 2005, a federal magistrate judge rejected the argument that the law could be used to compel a telecommunications provider to allow real-time tracking of a cellphone without a search warrant.

 

 

Here is another article I found interesting that is on the same topic:

 

http://www.alternet....protect-freedom

 

Some extracts:

 

 

 

...the FBI should have made this challenge earlier than now. They have to take this stance. But they’ve so tarnished their position with all the NSA snooping.
 It would be a mistake for people to think of this as “The People” against government security. That’s a ruse. Really, it’s the world’s biggest corporation versus the world’s most powerful military. That’s what we’re looking at. And while I do believe that we people should defend our right to privacy, I don’t see the individual’s right to military-grade encryption.
 My instinct is that first, there’s not going to be anything valuable on the phone anyway

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#2
Ghostreaper

Ghostreaper

    Hopelessly optimistic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands, UK

I can't really see a way around this right now.... We can't allow encrypted systems to have back doors built in to them so that government agencies can access data in response to a crime, because that obviously destroys the security of the system, but we also can't have criminals using those same systems to avoid governments stopping them. 

 

The only thing that comes to mind is an A.I. within each device (not sentient ofc) advanced enough to know with 99.9% certainty that the data flowing through an individual's device is facilitating criminal or terrorist agenda's. At which point your encryption is forfeit and the A.I. sends that data to the authorities. This would have to be highly regulated to maintain that the A.I. remains completely unbiased and uncorrupted by outside sources (hackers). When and if that is available is anyone's guess.


“If the genius of invention were to reveal to-morrow the secret of immortality, of eternal beauty and youth, for which all humanity is aching, the same inexorable agents which prevent a mass from changing suddenly its velocity would likewise resist the force of the new knowledge until time gradually modifies human thought.” 

 

                                                                 Nikola Tesla - New York World, May 19th 1907 


#3
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Well.

 

Personally, I view the iPhone as Apple property. Not the American government's. Apple has every right to not have to hand it over. But the FBI needs some way to solve the San Bernardino case.



#4
GenX

GenX

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • LocationSo Cal

I honestly don't know what the right answer is on this one.  We can't trust the government not to abuse this once Apple gives in and un-encrypts it for them, but on the other hand I don't want terrorists being able to hide things on their phone that can't be un-encrypted.  I guess it's not that different then the police breaking down a locked door and searching someone's home, so I suppose as long as they have to get a warrant each time then maybe that's the lesser of two evils.  On the other hand the NSA supposedly has all our data anyway so I don't know why the FBI can't just get it from them.


The only thing we ever want is more


#5
voluntaryist

voluntaryist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 503 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire

On the other hand the NSA supposedly has all our data anyway so I don't know why the FBI can't just get it from them.

 

end-to-end encryption



#6
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,593 posts

The Washington Post is just full of interesting stories today.  Here is another:

 

https://www.washingt...:homepage/story


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#7
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,593 posts

http://news.yahoo.co...-230554970.html

 

 

 

In a filing late Monday, federal prosecutors said "an outside party" has come forward and shown the FBI a possible method for unlocking the phone used by one of the shooters in the Dec. 2 terror attack. Authorities say they need time to determine if the method will work without compromising data on the phone.

 

If the method works, the government said, it would eliminate the need for Apple's assistance. Apple has fought the court order, saying the government's demand for assistance would make other iPhones vulnerable.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#8
Maximus

Maximus

    Spaceman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,805 posts
  • LocationCanada

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...break-1.3509899

 

End of scandal. Though I'm glad that Apple didn't give in, the fact that the FBI was still able to bypass the security features is pretty worrying. Don't get me wrong, I'm also glad the FBI can now carry out it's investigation of the terrorist's phone; just concerned about how this could be misused to spy on anybody, like government agencies have been known to do. 


  • caltrek likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: San Bernardino Gunman, Apple, U.S. Justice Department, Privacy, iPhone, FBI, encryption, court case

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users