Apple Resisting Magistrate Order to Share iPhone Information
Apple Inc. CEO
Tim Cook said Wednesday his company will resist a federal
magistrate's order to hack its users in connection with the
investigation of the San Bernardino, California shootings, asserting
such a move would undermine encryption by creating a backdoor that could
potentially be used on other future devices.
Cook's ferocious
response, posted early Wednesday on the company's website, came after an
order from US Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym that Apple Inc. help the Obama
administration
break into an encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the
shooters in the December attack.
The first-of-its-kind ruling was a
significant victory for the Justice Department in a technology policy
debate that pits digital privacy against national security interests.
Noting
the order Tuesday from federal Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym in
California, Cook said "this moment calls for public discussion, and we
want our customers and people around the country to understand what is
at stake."
Cook argued that the order "has implications far beyond the legal case at hand."
Pym
ordered
Apple to help the FBI hack into an encrypted iPhone belonging
to one of the San Bernardino shooters.., and setting the stage for a
legal fight between the federal government and Silicon Valley over a
first-of-its-kind ruling.
The order directing Apple to help the
FBI break into an encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardo
shooters represents a significant victory for the Justice Department.
The Obama administration has embraced stronger encryption as a way to
keep consumers safe on the Internet, but struggled to find a compelling
example to make its case.
Cook said in the
website posting that
the US government order would undermine encryption by using specialized
software to create an essential back door that he compared to a "master
key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks."
"In the
wrong hands, this software - which does not exist today - would have the
potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession," Cook
wrote. "The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make
no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way
would undeniably create a back door. And while the government may argue
that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to
guarantee such control."
FBI Director James Comey told members of
Congress last week that encryption is a major problem for law
enforcement who "find a device that can't be opened even when a judge
says there's probable cause to open it."
The ruling Tuesday tied
the problem to the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil since the 2001
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Syed Farook and his
wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people in a Dec. 2 shooting at a holiday
luncheon for Farook's co-workers. The couple later died in a gun battle
with police.
Federal prosecutors told the judge in a court
proceeding Tuesday - that was conducted without Apple being allowed to
participate - that investigators can't access a work phone used by
Farook because they don't know his passcode and Apple has not
cooperated. Under US law, a work phone is generally the property of a
person's employer. The judge told Apple to provide an estimate of its
cost to comply with her order, suggesting that the government will be
expected to pay for the work.
Apple has provided default
encryption on its iPhones since 2014, allowing any device's contents to
be accessed only by the user who knows the phone's passcode.
The
ruling by Pym, a former federal prosecutor, requires Apple to supply
highly specialized software the FBI can load onto the county-owned work
iPhone to bypass a self-destruct feature, which erases the phone's data
after too many unsuccessful attempts to unlock it. The FBI wants to be
able to try different combinations in rapid sequence until it finds the
right one.
It was not immediately clear what investigators believe
they might find on Farook's work phone or why the information would not
be available from third-party service providers, such as Google or
Facebook, though investigators think the device may hold clues about
whom the couple communicated with and where they may have traveled.
The
couple took pains to physically destroy two personally owned cell
phones, crushing them beyond the FBI's ability to recover information
from them. They also removed a hard drive from their computer; it has
not been found despite investigators diving for days for potential
electronic evidence in a nearby lake.
Farook was not carrying his
work iPhone during the attack. It was discovered after a subsequent
search. It was not known whether Farook forgot about the iPhone or did
not care whether investigators found it.
The phone was running the
newest version of Apple's iPhone operating system, which requires a
passcode and cannot be accessed by Apple, unlike earlier operating
systems or older phone models. San Bernardino County provided Farook
with an iPhone configured to erase data after 10 consecutive
unsuccessful unlocking attempts. The FBI said that feature appeared to
be active on Farook's iPhone as of the last time he performed a backup.
The
judge didn't spell out her rationale in her three-page order, but the
ruling comes amid a similar case in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.
Investigators are still working to
piece together a missing 18 minutes in Farook and Malik's timeline from
Dec. 2. Investigators have concluded they were at least partly inspired
by the Islamic State group; Malik's Facebook page included a note
pledging allegiance to the group's leader around the time of the attack.
In
2014, Apple updated its iPhone operating system to require that the
phone be locked by a passcode that only the user knows. Previously, the
company could use an extraction tool that would physically plug into the
phone and allow it to respond to search warrant requests from the
government.
FBI Director James Comey told members of Congress last
week that encryption is a major problem for law enforcement who "find a
device that can't be opened even when a judge says there's probable
cause to open it."
HTC
also says the consumer edition of the Vive headset is much more
comfortable to wear than previous prototypes and developer editions,
with a new and improved headstrap, apart from other minor design changes
that make it more ergonomic for a wider range of users. Just as with
the Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive is required to be connected to a
relatively powerful PC to work as intended.
