Dangerous. Spooky. Without precedents. These are the words used by the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, to describe the court order demanding that his company will help the Federal Bureau of Investigation US (FBI) to access iPhone Rizwan Syed Farook, the murderer of San Bernardino.
Along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, Farook killed 14 people in a care facility for the disabled on 2 December, in what was described as an Islamist attack.
And the FBI accuses the tech giant of obstructing the investigation into possible with radical groups, while ensuring that only want to access the information in the iPhone attacker.
in September 2014, the company decided that data from their devices, such as text messages and photographs would automatically encrypted, inaccessible even to Apple precisely to avoid moral dilemmas. It was a reaction to the revelations of Edward Snowden on clandestine electronic surveillance program in the United States.
Now Apple says it is defending the privacy of all its users and values of American democracy by refusing .
Who is right? What will happen now? Is there any solution? These are the 7 keys to understanding this complex case that could determine the boundary between data protection and national security.
1. What does exactly the FBI?
The FBI wants Apple to alter the so-called System Information File, or SIF, the software they use the devices, and create a new one for the iPhone Farook. This would allow to perform various functions that can not be done in the current iPhone
Specifically, the FBI wants.
Power enter an unlimited number of passwords to unlock the smartphone Farook. Now a four-digit code is required to access the data, but if the wrong code is entered 10 times, the system deletes all the data.
Allow a computer to enter the different combinations of codes 10000 in completely without having to enter codes manually … … And to do this quickly, a process that currently take more than five years.
Control the process without necessarily knowing how you’re doing Apple. This is interesting because it suggests that the FBI would be willing to allow Apple Farook manipulate the device in its own laboratories, thus preventing the software to access the iPhone out of the company.
As points technology correspondent for the BBC, Dave Lee, the latter point could prove crucial as this case runs the courts.
the FBI ultimately argue that just want to access the iPhone via Farook a system that only Apple could meet and decide to destroy later.
2. Why Apple is reluctant to collaborate?
In a letter to its members, the head of Apple, Tim Cook, says he does not want to create a “back door”, an alternative system to access an iPhone besides entering the password.
the “back doors” are crucial security. Hackers can make fortunes if they discover and buyers include criminals and governments trying to spy or to obtain missing data.
Apple says that if this software fall “into the wrong hands,” that would unlock all the iPhone, not only of Farook.
“you can not create an accessible only good backdoor” Cook said last year. “Any backdoor can be used by the bad.”
3. You can be accessed Farook iPhone?
Most of the experts consulted by the BBC say it is possible to access the iPhone Farook without damaging the data it contains.
Apple has not denied this possible, preferring to emphasize the reasons why this should not be done.
According to the researcher Dan Guido, Apple could create software that can be used only on iPhone Farook.
“the customized version of iOS will ignore delays entering passwords, it will not erase the device after a number of attempts to access it, and allow the FBI to link it to an external device to discover the password,” he wrote.
“the FBI can send Apple iPhone to the customized version of iOS never physically leave the Apple campus.”
4. Who supports Apple?
On Wednesday, representatives of technology companies supported Apple, interested in maintaining its reputation on safety.
Jan Koum, the creator of Whatsapp, owned by Facebook, wrote: “we can not allow creating a dangerous precedent Today our freedom is at stake.”
the head of Google, Sundar Pichai, said “force companies allow hack [devices]. could threaten the privacy of users. “
Edward Snowden, on the other hand, said the FBI is” creating a world where people depend on Apple to protect their rights, and not vice versa. “
5. Who do you think Apple is wrong?
The White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, told reporters Wednesday that the FBI “is simply asking for something that would impact only on a particular device.”
Donald Trump, the Republican US presidential candidate said he is “100% agree with the courts,” adding that “we should open” in an interview on Fox News. There are voices in the technology community that support FBI. In mic.com, writer Jack Smith, for example, states that “the reality is that there is protection: judicial order.”
“We must fight to make it difficult to get an order court. But what is truly unprecedented is the idea that a company like Apple can prevent our security services to execute that order. “
6. Is there something else behind this case?
It would seem so. two years
In October 2015 makes Apple and the government struggling to establish what should be the legal precedent that determine where data security ends and where national security begins. The FBI director James Comey, abandoned attempts to Silicon Valley has any kind of system to allow researchers to unlock the smartphone.
Since then, it seemed that relations between the government of Barack Obama and the technology community had improved .
But all that changed last February 9, when Comey told the Senate that the FBI could not unlock the iPhone Farook.
He was followed by Admiral Michael Rogers, director National security Agency (NSA, for its acronym in English), who said on February 17 that Islamist bombers who killed 130 people in Paris last November would not have succeeded if the security agencies had been able to penetrate their communications encrypted.
therefore, many experts say that the case of San Bernardino is no accident, providing a perfect excuse to government and security agencies to force greater control over communications.
7. What now?
The Judicial Committee of the United States House of Representatives is expected to discuss this issue on 1 March, Apple invited to participate. In the judicial field, Apple still has a few days to officially respond to the order of Judge Sheri Pym, the District Court in Los Angeles, who ordered Apple this week to work with the FBI.
it is most likely that the response of the company to be a “no.” In this way the case will go to a higher court, then an appellate court and eventually reached the Supreme Court to take a final decision, which could take years.
No comments:
Post a Comment