The FBI-Apple encryption dispute understands whether and to what extent the courts in the United States can force manufacturers to help unlock phones whose data are protected cryptographically. There is much debate about public access to strong encryption.
In 2015 and 2016, Apple Inc. has accepted and denied or challenged at least 11 orders issued by the US District Court under the All Writs Act of 1789. Most attempted to force Apple "to use its existing ability to extract data such as contacts, photos and calls from the locked iPhone on iOS 7 and older operating systems "to assist in criminal investigation and prosecution. Some requests, however, involve mobile phones with wider security protection, which Apple does not have the current ability to destroy. This order will force Apple to write new software that will let the government bypass the security of this device and unlock the phone.
The most famous example of the latter category is the February 2016 court case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The FBI wants Apple to create and sign electronically new software that will allow the FBI to unlock the 5C iPhone issued by the work recovering from one of the shooters who, in December 2015 terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people and injured 22 The two assailants were later killed in a gunfight with the police, after first destroying their private phone. The work phone has been restored intact but is locked with a four-digit password and is set to clear all its data after ten failed password attempts. Apple refused to create software, and the trial is scheduled for March 22. However, the day before the trial should have happened, the government got a delay, saying they had found a third party who could help unlock the iPhone and, on March 28, it was announced that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request.
In another case in Brooklyn, the judge ruled that the All Writs Act could not be used to force Apple to unlock the iPhone. The government appealed against the verdict, but later canceled the case on April 22 after being given the correct passcode.
Video FBI-Apple encryption dispute
​​â € <â €
In 1993, the National Security Agency (NSA) introduced the Clipper chip, an encryption device with a recognized backdoor for government access, which the NSA proposed was used for telephone encryption. The proposal sparked a public debate, known as Crypto Wars, and the Clipper chip was never adopted.
It was disclosed as part of the disclosure of mass surveillance in 2013 by Edward Snowden that the NSA and Government Communications Headquarters of the United Kingdom (GCHQ) has access to user data on iPhone, BlackBerry and Android phones and can read almost any smartphone information, including SMS, , email, and notes.
According to The New York Times , Apple developed a new encryption method for the iOS operating system, version 8 and later, "so deep that Apple can no longer comply with government orders requesting customer information to be extracted from the device. "Throughout 2015, prosecutors advise the US government to be able to force decryption of iPhone content.
In September 2015, Apple released a white paper detailing security measures in the new iOS 9 operating system. The iPhone 5C model can be protected by a four-digit PIN code. After more than ten wrong attempts to unlock the phone with the wrong PIN, the contents of the phone will become inaccessible by removing the AES encryption key that protects the stored data. According to Apple's white paper, iOS includes the Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) mode, and that "[r] estimating the device after entering DFU mode returns it to a known good state with the certainty that only Apple's unmodified sign code is present."
Maps FBI-Apple encryption dispute
Apple orders to help the FBI
The FBI rediscovered the Apple iPhone 5C - owned by San Bernardino County, the California government - which has been issued to its employees, Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters involved in the San Bernardino attack in December 2015. The attack killed 14 people and seriously injured 22 Two attackers died four hours after an attack in a shoot-out with police, having previously destroyed their private phone. Although Farook's work phone has been completely restored, it has been locked with a four-digit password.
On February 9, 2016, the FBI announced that it was unable to unlock the county-owned telephone it restored, due to its advanced security features, including user data encryption. The FBI first asked the National Security Agency to break into the phone, but they could not because they had only knowledge of breaking into other devices commonly used by criminals, not the iPhone. As a result, the FBI asked Apple Inc. to create a new version of the iOS mobile operating system that can be installed and run in random access memory of the phone to disable certain security features called by Apple as "GovtOS". Apple refused because of its policy that requires it to never damage its product security features. The FBI responded by successfully applying to US judge Sheri Pym to issue a court order, requiring Apple to create and supply the requested software. The order was not a court order, but was issued under the All Writs of 1789 law. The court order, called In Apple's iPhone Seeking Question Seized During Execution Warrant Search on Lexus Black IS300, Plat 35KGD203 California , filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
The use of the All Writs Act to force Apple to write new software is unprecedented, and according to lawyers, it is likely to encourage "epic combat pits privacy against national security." It also shows that the implications of a legal precedent that will be determined by the success of this action against Apple will go far beyond the privacy issue.
Technical details of order
The court order states that Apple provided assistance to resolve the following:
- "it will bypass or disable auto-erase functionality whether it is enabled or not" (this user-configurable feature of iOS 8 automatically removes the keys needed to read encrypted data after ten wrong attempts). li>
- "This will allow the FBI to send a passcode to SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically through the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi or any other available protocol"
- "This will ensure that when the FBI sends a passcode to SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not intentionally introduce any additional delay between the password encoding beyond what is issued by Apple hardware"
The order also specifies that Apple's help may include providing software for the FBI that "will be encoded by Apple with a unique phone identifier so that [software] will only load and execute on SUBJECT DEVICE"
There have been many studies and analyzes of technical issues presented in this case since court orders were made available to the public. Apple's
Apple's opposition to the
The order of 16 February 2016 issued by Judge Pym gave Apple five days to file a waiver if Apple believed the order was "too burdensome". Apple announced its intention to oppose the order, citing security risks that backdoor creation would incur customers. He also stated that no government has ever asked for similar access. The company was granted until February 26 to fully respond to court orders.
The same day the order was issued, chief executive officer Tim Cook released an online statement to Apple customers, explaining the company's motives against the court order. He also stated that while they respected the FBI, the demands they made threatened data security by setting precedents that the US government could use to force any technology company to create software that could undermine the security of its products. He said some:
The United States government has demanded that Apple take unprecedented steps that threaten the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has far-reaching implications beyond the legal case at hand. Currently calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people across the country to understand what is at stake.
In response to the opposition, on Feb. 19, the US Justice Department filed a new petition urging a federal judge to force Apple to comply with the order. The new application states that the company can install the software on the phone in its own place, and after the FBI hacked the phone via a remote connection, Apple can remove and destroy the software. Apple hired lawyer Ted Olson and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. to counter appeals.
On the same day, Apple revealed that they had discussed with four FBI methods to access data on iPhone in early January, but, as revealed in footnote in the Feb. 19 app to court, one of the more promising methods was ruled. by mistake during the attack's investigation. After the shooter phone is restored, the FBI asks San Bernardino County, the owner of the phone, to reset the password to the iCloud shooter account to obtain data from the iCloud backup. However, this makes the phone unable to back up the latest data to iCloud unless its pass-code is entered. This was confirmed by the US Department of Justice, who later added that any reserves would be "inadequate" because they would not be able to recover sufficient information from it.
Legal arguments
Government cites as precedent United States v. New York Telephone Co. , in which the Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the All Writs Act gave a court of power to request reasonable technical assistance from the telephone company in accessing telephone call records. Apple responds that New York Telephone has collected questionable data on its business trip, something the Supreme Court notices in its verdict. Apple also insisted that it was forced to write new software "the amount that forces speech and discriminatory viewpoints that violate the First Amendment.... What stops the government from suing Apple writing code to turn on the microphone in government oversight assistance, turn on video cameras, silently recording conversations, or enabling location services to track phone users? "Apple believes that the FBI does not use all government tools, such as using NSA resources. The trial of this case is scheduled on March 22, 2016.
San Bernardino District Attorney Michael Ramos made a brief statement that the iPhone may contain evidence of "abandoned virtual pathogens" that could be entered into the San Bernardino County computer network, as well as identifying the possibility of a third armed man alleged to have been seen at the scene of an eyewitness attack. The next day, Ramos told the Associated Press that he did not know whether the shooters had endangered the district infrastructure, but the only way to know for sure was to gain access to the iPhone. This statement has been criticized by cyber security professionals as being unlikely.
FBI withdrawal requests
On March 21, the government requested and granted a delay, saying the third party has shown a possible way to unlock the iPhone in question and the FBI needs more time to determine if it will work. On March 28, the FBI said it had unlocked the iPhone with the help of a third party, and an anonymous official said the hacking app was limited; The Department of Justice withdrew the case. Lawyers for the FBI have stated that they are using the extracted information to further investigate the case.
On April 7, FBI Director James Comey said that the tool used could only unlock iPhone 5C as used by San Bernardino shooters, as well as older iPhone models that do not have Touch ID sensor. Comey also confirmed that the tool was purchased from a third party but would not disclose the source, then pointed out the tool cost more than $ 1.3 million and that they did not buy the rights to technical details about how the tool works. Although the FBI was able to use other technological means to access mobile data from the San Bernardino 5C iPhone shooter, without Apple's help, law enforcement still expressed concern over the encryption controversy.
Some news outlets, citing anonymous sources, identify third parties as the Israeli company Cellebrite. However, The Washington Post reported that, according to anonymous "people familiar with this issue", the FBI instead pays "professional hackers" who use zero-day vulnerabilities in iPhone software to bypass ten-try restrictions, and unnecessary Cellebrite help.
Other All Writs Act cases involving iPhone
Apple previously challenged the US Justice Department authorities to force it to unlock the iPhone 5S in a drug case in the United States District Court for the New York District of New York in Brooklyn ( In re Order Requires Apple Inc. to Assist in Execution of Court Published Warrants, case number 1: 15-mc-01902), after the judge's judge in the case, James Orenstein, requested Apple's position before issuing the order. On February 29, 2016, Judge Orenstein rejected the government's request, saying the All Writs Act could not be used to force the company to modify its products: "The implications of the government's position are so far-reaching - both in terms of what will allow today and what it means the purpose of Congress in 1789 - to produce unreasonable results. "Orenstein goes on to criticize the government's position, writes," It is unreasonable to assume that the authorities sought by the government is anything other than obnoxious to the law. " The Department of Justice appealed to Margot Brodie District Court judge. Apple requested a delay while the FBI attempted to access the San Bernardino iPhone without Apple's help. On April 8, after the FBI was successful, the Justice Department said the Brooklyn court was intended to press ahead with its request for assistance there, but on April 22, the government withdrew its request, told the court "an individual" (the suspect, according to press reports) provide the correct access code.
In addition to the case of San Bernardino and the Brooklyn case, Apple has received at least nine different requests from federal court under the All Writs Act for iPhone or iPad products. Apple objected to this request. This fact was disclosed by Apple in court filings in the Brooklyn case made at the request of a judge in that case. Most of these requests call Apple "to use its existing ability to extract data such as contacts, photos and calls from locked iPhone running on iOS7 and older operating systems" (as in the case of Brooklyn), while others "involve mobile phones with encryption that more widespread, which Apple can not break "and may attempt to order Apple to" design new software to let the government avoid device security protocols and unlock mobile phones "(as in the case of San Bernardino).
Reaction
The national reaction to Apple's opposition to the order varied. A CBS News poll that sampled 1,022 Americans found that 50% of respondents supported the establishment of the FBI, while 45% supported the establishment of Apple. Also, 1,002 Americans surveyed who own smartphones are divided into two sides; 51% opposed Apple's decision, while 38% supported their establishment.
Support for Apple
The Government Reform Coalition of Reform, which includes major technology companies Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo !, Twitter, and LinkedIn, has indicated its opposition to the order. On March 3, deadlines, a large number of amicus curiae have been filed with the courts, with many technology companies supporting Apple's position, including a joint report from Amazon.com, Box, Cisco Systems, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Lavabit, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nest Labs, Pinterest, Slack Technologies, Snapchat, WhatsApp, and Yahoo !. Briefs from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Access Now, and the Center for Democracy and Technology also support Apple.
The think tank Niskanen Center has suggested that this case is a door-in-face technique designed to get final approval for encryption backdoors and is seen as a revival of Crypto Wars.
US Representative Mike Honda, a Democrat representing the Silicon Valley region, has voiced his support for Apple.
On February 23, 2016, a series of pro-Apple protests hosted by Fight for the Future are held outside Apple stores in more than 40 locations.
Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned the FBI about the potential "devastating implications" of human rights and that they were "at risk of opening Pandora's box" through their investigation.
General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and Central Intelligence Agency, in a March 7 interview with Maria Bartiromo at Fox Business Network, supported Apple's position, noting that the CIA considers cyber-threatening the number one threat to US security and says that "this could be the case at where we should hand over some things in law enforcement and even fight terrorism to preserve this aspect, our cybersecurity. "
Salihin Kondoker, whose wife was shot in the attack but survived, filed a friend from a brief court siding with Apple; in short saying that he "understands [s] that this software the government wants them to use will be used against millions of other innocent people." I share their fears.
With Apple's privacy policy for customers there's no way to sign in to a phone without someone's primary password. With this policy, there will be no backdoor access on the phone for law enforcement to access someone's personal information. This has caused major disputes between the FBI and Apple's encryption. Apple has closed this backdoor for law enforcement because they believe that creating this backdoor will make it easier for law enforcement, and also make it easier for criminal hackers to gain access to personal data of people on their phones. Former FBI director James Comey said that "We are floating somewhere in the country where there will be a zone that is beyond the reach of the law." He believes that backdoor access is very important for investigation, and without it many criminals will not be punished.
Edward Snowden said that the FBI already had the technical means to unlock Apple's device and said, "The global technology consensus is against the FBI."
McAfee founder and Libertarian Party presidential candidate John McAfee openly offered to decrypt the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooters, avoiding Apple's need to build a backdoor. He then points out that the method he will use, extracting unique IDs from within the A7 processor chip, is difficult and at risk of locking the phone permanently, and that he is looking for publicity.
In an interview for Cook's Time Magazine cover story, Cook says the problem is not "privacy versus security... it's privacy and security or privacy and safety versus security." Cook also says, "[T] is the golden age of the oversight we live in. There is more information about us all, more than ten years ago, or five years ago.This is everywhere.You leave a digital footprint where everywhere. "
On March 21, 2016, Apple's press conference, Cook talked about the ongoing conflict with the FBI, saying, "[W] e has a responsibility to protect your data and your privacy We will not undermine this responsibility."
Ron Wyden, Democrat senator for Oregon and a privacy and encryption advocate, questioned FBI's honesty about the content of the phone. He said in a statement, "There is a real question about whether [the FBI] has been straight with the public on [Apple's case]."
Support for FBI
Some families of survivors and survivors of the attack indicated that they would submit briefly to support the FBI.
The National Sheriff's Association has stated that Apple's establishment is "putting profits safer" and "nothing to do with privacy." The Association of Federal Law Enforcement Officers, the Public Prosecutors Association, and the National Sheriff Association filed brief support to the FBI.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has voiced opposition to Apple. All candidates for the Republican nomination for the 2016 US presidential election that did not get out of the race before 19 February 2016 supported the FBI's position, although some expressed concern about adding backdoors to mobile phones.
On February 23, 2016, the Financial Times reported that Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, had sided with the FBI in the case. However, Gates later said in an interview with Bloomberg News "which does not state my views on this." He added that he thinks the right balance and protection must be found in court and in Congress, and that the debate triggered by the case is invaluable.
San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said in an interview:
I will be honest with you, I think there is a great chance that there is no value whatsoever on the line. What we expected might be on the phone would be the potential contacts we obviously want to talk to. This is an attempt to leave the missed business needs in the investigation. [To] allow this phone to sit there and not seek to obtain information or data that may exist in the phone is unfair to the victims and their families.
The Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr., said that he wants Apple to unlock the iPhone 175 that is inaccessible to Cyber-Crime Lab's office, and adds, "Apple should be directed to unlock the phone when there is a court order by an independent judge which proves and demonstrates that there is relevant evidence on the phone required for individual cases. "
FBI Director Comey, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, compared the security of Apple's iPhone with a guard dog, said, "We asked Apple to bring a cruel guard dog and let us take the key."
IOS 8 Apple software has an encryption mechanism that makes it difficult for the government to get through it. Apple does not provide a backdoor for surveillance without company policy. However, Comey stated that he does not want a backdoor reconnaissance method and that "We want to use the front door, with clarity and transparency, and with clear guidance provided by law." He believes that special access is needed to stop criminals such as "terrorists and child molesters". Many companies like Apple will not grant US access because of Apple's policy of confidentiality.
Call to compromise
Both Democratic presidential candidates - former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders - suggest some compromises to be found.
US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter asked Silicon Valley and the federal government to work together. "We're really behind strong data security and strong encryption, there's no question about that," he said. Carter also added that he "does not believe in the back door."
In a speech to the South by Southwest 2016 conference on March 11, President Barack Obama stated that while he can not comment on a specific case, "You can not take absolute views on [encryption].if your view is strong encryption, no matter what too, and we can and should make a black box, which does not strike a balance that we've been through for 200 or 300 years, and that makes our phone cool above every other value.This can not be the right answer. "
Proposed law
On April 13, US Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, the Speaker of the Republic and the senior Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, respectively, released a bill that would authorize state and federal judges to order "anyone who provides a product or method to facilitate communication or processing or storage of data "to provide data in clear form or technical assistance in unlocking encrypted data and that any person distributing software or devices should ensure that they are able to comply with such orders.
Freedom of Information Act Act
In September 2016, the Associated Press, Media Representative, and Gannett (owner of USA Today ) filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI, seeking to force agencies to disclose who was hired to unlock the iPhone Farook, and how much is paid. On September 30, 2017, a federal court ruled against media organizations and provided a brief assessment for the government's interests. The court ruled that the company that hacked the iPhone and the amount paid to it by the FBI was a national security secret and "source or method of intelligence" exempted from disclosure under the FOIA; the court also ruled that the amount paid "reflects a secret law enforcement technique or procedure" which is also included in the FOIA exemption.
See also
- Bernstein v. United States ? -? case on software as a say
- List of US Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment Ã, §A spoken speech
- Riley v. California ? -? withhold unconstitutional unsecured searches from mobile phones during capture, noting unique mobile privacy implications
- United States v. New York Telephone Co. ? -? states that law enforcement officials may obtain a court order that forces the telephone company to install pen registers to record the dialed numbers of certain phones.
- Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes ? -? other software that holds is a form of greeting
References
External links
- Draft Draft Burr (leaked) Encryption Draft
- Draft Encryption Encryption Bill (official version)
- Apple's FAQ about controversy
- the FBI director's comments on the 2016 dispute
- An online resource for legal submission in the 2016 dispute at Cryptome
- US Lawyer's Declaration of Public Relations Eileen M. Decker on Government Requests to Clear Commands Encouraging Apple to Help Access the iPhone
- The hardware hacked over iPhone's iPhone password security
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments