Ondrej Holzman In the United States, the conflict between Apple, the FBI and the Department of Justice is growing every day. According to Apple, the data security of hundreds of millions of people is at stake, but according to the FBI, the Californian company should step back so that investigators can access the iPhone of the terrorist who shot fourteen people and wounded more than two dozen others in San Bernardino last year.
It all started with a court order that Apple received from the FBI. The American FBI has an iPhone that belonged to 14-year-old Syed Rizwan Farook. At the beginning of last December, he and his partner shot XNUMX people in San Bernardino, California, which was designated as a terrorist act. With the seized iPhone, the FBI would like to find out more details about Farook and the whole case, but they have a problem - the phone is password protected and the FBI can't get into it.
Although Apple cooperated with American investigators from the very beginning, it was not enough for the FBI, and in the end, together with the American government, they are trying to force Apple to break the security in an unprecedented way. The Californian giant objected to this and Tim Cook announced in an open letter that he would fight back. After that, a discussion immediately flared up, after which Cook himself called, solving whether Apple behaved correctly, whether the FBI should request such a thing and, in short, on which side who stands.
We will force him
Cook's open letter sparked a flurry of passions. While some technology companies, Apple's key allies in this fight, and others iPhone makers expressed support, the US government does not like the rejectionist attitude at all. The Californian firm has an extended deadline until Friday, February 26, to officially respond to the court order, but the US Department of Justice has concluded from its rhetoric that it will likely not budge and comply with the order.
“Rather than complying with a court order to assist with the investigation into this murderous terrorist attack, Apple responded by publicly disavowing it. This refusal, although it is within Apple's ability to comply with the order, appears to be based mainly on its business plan and marketing strategy," attacked the US government, which plans, together with the FBI, to make maximum efforts to compel Apple to cooperate.
What the FBI is asking Apple for is simple. The found iPhone 5C, belonging to one of the shot terrorists, is secured with a numerical code, without which the investigators will not be able to get any data from it. That's why the FBI wants Apple to provide it with a tool (actually, a special variant of the operating system) that disables the feature that erases the entire iPhone after XNUMX wrong codes, while allowing its technicians to try different combinations in short order. Otherwise, iOS has a set delay when the password is repeatedly entered incorrectly.
Once these restrictions fell, the FBI could figure out the code with a so-called brute force attack, using a powerful computer to try all possible combinations of numbers to unlock the phone. But Apple considers such a tool a huge security risk. "The United States government wants us to take an unprecedented step that threatens the security of our users. We must defend against this order, as it could have implications far beyond the current case," writes Tim Cook.
It's not the only iPhone
Apple opposes the court order by saying that the FBI more or less wants it to create a backdoor through which it would then be possible to get into any iPhone. Although the investigating agencies claim that they are only concerned with the incriminating phone from the San Bernardino attack, there is no guarantee - as Apple argues - that this tool will not be misused in the future. Or that the US government will not use it again, already without the knowledge of Apple and users.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]We don't feel good about being on the opposite side of the government.[/su_pullquote]Tim Cook unequivocally condemned the terrorist act on behalf of his entire company and added that Apple's current actions certainly do not mean helping terrorists, but simply protecting hundreds of millions of other people who are not terrorists, and the company feels obliged to protect their data.
A relatively important element in the whole debate is also the fact that Farook's iPhone is an older model 5C, which does not yet have key security features in the form of Touch ID and the associated Secure Enclave element. However, according to Apple, the tool requested by the FBI would also be able to "unlock" new iPhones that have a fingerprint reader, so it is not a method that would be limited to older devices.
In addition, the entire case is not built in such a way that Apple refused to assist the investigation, and therefore the Department of Justice and the FBI had to reach for a solution through the courts. On the contrary, Apple has been actively cooperating with the investigative units since the iPhone 5C was seized in the possession of one of the terrorists.
Fundamental investigative misconduct
In the whole investigation, at least from what has become public, we can see some interesting details. From the beginning, the FBI wanted access to the backup data that was automatically stored in iCloud on the acquired iPhone. Apple provided investigators with several possible scenarios for how they could accomplish this. In addition, he himself had previously provided the last deposit available to him. However, this was already done on October 19, i.e. less than two months before the attack, which was not enough for the FBI.
Apple can access iCloud backups even if the device is locked or password protected. Therefore, upon request, Farook's last backup was provided by the FBI without any problems. And in order to download the latest data, the FBI advised that the recovered iPhone be connected to a known Wi-Fi (in Farook's office, since it was a company phone), because once an iPhone with automatic backup turned on is connected to a known Wi-Fi, it is backed up .
But after seizing the iPhone, the investigators made a major mistake. San Bernardino County deputies who were in possession of the iPhone worked with the FBI to reset Farook's Apple ID password within hours of finding the phone (they likely had access to it through the attacker's work email). The FBI initially denied such activity, but later confirmed the California district's announcement. It is not yet clear why the investigators resorted to such a step, but one consequence is quite clear: Apple's instructions for connecting the iPhone to known Wi-Fi became invalid.
As soon as the Apple ID password is changed, the iPhone will refuse to perform an automatic backup to iCloud until a new password is entered. And because the iPhone was protected by a password that investigators didn't know, they couldn't confirm the new password. A new backup was therefore not possible. Apple claims the FBI did the password reset out of impatience, and experts are shaking their heads over it too. According to them, this is a fundamental error in the forensic procedure. If the password had not been changed, the backup would have been made and Apple would have provided the data to the FBI without any problems. In this way, however, the investigators themselves deprived themselves of this possibility, and in addition, such a mistake may come back to them in a possible court investigation.
The argument that the FBI came up with immediately after the above-mentioned error appeared, that it would not actually be able to get enough data from the iCloud backup, as if it were to physically go directly to the iPhone, seems dubious. At the same time, if he managed to find out the password to the iPhone, the data would be obtained from it in practically the same way as backups in iTunes work. And they are the same as on iCloud, and maybe even more detailed thanks to regular backups. And according to Apple, they are sufficient. This raises the question of why the FBI, if it wanted more than just an iCloud backup, didn't tell Apple directly.
No one is going to back down
At least now, it is clear that neither side is going to back down. “In the San Bernardino dispute, we're not trying to set a precedent or send a message. It's about sacrifice and justice. Fourteen people were murdered and the lives and bodies of many more mutilated. We owe them a legal thorough and professional investigation,” he wrote in a brief comment, FBI director James Comey, according to which his agency does not want any backdoors in all iPhones, and therefore Apple should cooperate. Even the victims of the San Bernardino attacks are not united. Some are on the side of the government, others welcome the arrival of Apple.
Apple remains adamant. "We don't feel good about being on the opposite side of the rights and freedoms case to the government that is supposed to protect them," Tim Cook wrote in a letter to staff today, urging the government to withdraw the order and instead create a special a commission composed of experts who would assess the entire case. "Apple would love to be a part of that."
Next to another letter from Apple on its website created a special question and answer page, where he tries to explain the facts so that everyone can understand the whole case correctly.
Further developments in the case can be expected no later than Friday, February 26, when Apple should officially comment on the court order, which it is seeking to overturn.
MG this is the land of the free... :P
??
I hope they don't give in to them. If I'm making something, I see no reason for someone to tell me how to do it and that I have to allow him arbitrary access. How about abolishing armored limousines, security systems and the sale of weapons altogether? This is exploitable by terrorists too.
It would be quite interesting if the FBI agents and the government would agree that they themselves would use such modified phones - they would certainly demand the unmodified version.
Although I agree, I am still amazed how the whole world applauds the supporters of apple in this matter :-)
Paradoxically, the three biggest snoopers, Facebook, Google, Twitter, responded :-)
Apple will allow it from time to time anyway. This is a lot of free publicity.
Honestly, I don't understand why Apple doesn't solve it completely simply - the phone will be unlocked at the command of the FBI in THEIR laboratories, or then return it to them with the PIN slip attached. No software to possibly be misused would leave the doors of the Apple campus, the FBI would get what it needed, both sides would get their due... This cell is unnecessarily heated, or if Apple goes into an open fight with it like this, it must be pursuing some of its higher goals (e.g. the current open issue of phone security, etc.) otherwise it doesn't make sense to me... :)
so try to imagine what will happen next... this will not be the only case when I will ask them for it, the prosecutor from New York has already been told that they have over 100 confiscated phones that he would like to be able to read. And you only have the US, what about other countries? Is Apple in the business of making phones or providing assistance to security services?
you know, it seems to me that Apple advocates look at it with children's eyes
today, you simply have to cooperate with the elements of the state, and the easiest example is the bank and bank secrets. can you imagine if the bank said that its business is not provided with assistance to the security forces of the state? that dirty money? :D no, the company is responsible for what you do, and if someone has given you access to those that are problematic, they should open it to the files. the second option is that of such things, put on the list things that cannot be exported outside the USA = it will be an unsaleable piece of crap
all this shit is just a PR backlash, apple is sooo secure, but it's BS for people
It seems to me that you are looking at it from a child's point of view.
First, they are under no obligation to make software the FBI wants.
Secondly, politicians like Donald Trump and the like are mainly doing PR on it.
Thirdly, Apple cooperates a lot with the FBI - it gave them data from iCloud.
Fourth, Apple provided instructions to the FBI to connect the iPhone to known Wi-Fi to obtain additional data.
Fifthly, the FBI are either amateurs or completely deliberately reset the password on iCloud, so Apple's data retrieval guide is now useless - apparently good for the backdoor argument.
For 6, they only take this case as an excuse to set a precedent and they already want to open more than 100 other phones.
For 7 FBI methods are sometimes against US law.
And when it comes to banks, terrorists definitely won't use an ordinary bank. Look at the Swiss banks where there are still such sums of money from the Nazis that you don't even think about.
And if the FBI and the US really should implement a backdoor, let it apply to phones in the US. I don't know why the FBI should have worldwide authority to access any phone of citizens of other countries.
you know, I'll put it simply, once Apple is registered as a company in the USA, it must follow the laws there, and if the law says that it must be made available, then it must. it's for the safety of all the last people, just like you can't just make guns and explosives at home
and as for your last "argument", no one wants to give the FBI worldwide authority to get into any phone of a citizen of other states :], all I want is to get into it if it is located on US soil, and if it meets conditions for such an intervention (i.e. generally suspected of terrorism, etc.)
you are a really naive individual - Blackberry was once forced to open servers for 'security' reasons and in all of Asia they had to change the way BIS/BES licenses worked and companies had to have mail servers located on the territory of certain countries (so that the security services could read the messages) - you do you really think that when the FBI achieves the creation of FBiOS for this phone, that 1) it will not be used for other cases, 2) I will not ask other governments for the exact same thing, but in cases where I will not even reach the limbs? China, Russia, Thailand, Indonesia, Iran, etc. where people disappear just because they have a different opinion
but I'm not saying it won't happen, it probably will happen, but I'm also not saying it's nothing bad
if something is found and sold on the territory of the Czech Republic, then I think it is OK if the Czech Republic tells itself under what conditions it can be used there
Let me ask you - is it illegal to use good security in a perfectly legal product?
It's not.
Some survivors have expressed that they themselves do not want Apple to allow the backdoor. It will not bring back the lives of their loved ones, and it will endanger millions of users around the world - there are countries where even expressing disagreement with the government is punishable by a bullet or forced labor. Data and valuable data will then be derived for other users, and it will support the black market as the stolen phone can be put into operation.
And all this will happen when it is allowed - after the FBI, the KGB and others will want that access, then hackers will get to it and people can throw away their phones.
The FBI had the opportunity to miss it, but they have more than enough evidence, and they have the option of wiretapping, etc.
This whole thing is just another political order to strengthen government power at the expense of citizens' rights. Nothing more, it's no longer about victims.
so let's get into the argument with foreign ugly governments, shall we? ok, so I'm a person who disagrees with the government and I use my iPhone to express my disagreement and the government gets angry and when they find out, I'm going to complain….hmmm, what am I using the iPhone for? I would say that I need to use it to write on forums and send emails, etc., that is, the government probably has the data a long time ago and the iPhone will not help it.... (if she was looking for me)
and the second scenario is that she didn't have me in the viewfinder, and she targeted me at the moment when I blew myself up in a movie theater full of people, and now she wants to unlock my phone because it's the only one she has..
So I don't see your short-sighted thinking about the FBI, KGB (which doesn't exist), and hackers who will then be able to throw away people's phones :D here we are talking about bypassing the phone's protection when you have physical access to it for a relatively long time in order to flash the firmware. i.e. a situation when a/ a house inspection took place, i.e. according to the applicable laws of the country (we can think of them ourselves) b/ someone hung up on you
if someone needs to protect his illegal shit, he writes it down on a piece of paper that he then burns and ashes tonight, everything else is PR for people like you who don't even need such a level of security because you don't do anything illegal (and if you do, it's only good that they will not have such a level of security)
Well, they changed their name - there is no difference.
No, I'm not doing anything illegal, but I run a business and I have a complete set of accounting, invoices, contracts, contacts and other documents stored on my phone - of course I also have it on my PC, but I don't carry it with me and the idea that someone steals my phone sucks the data out of it and then will gladly sell, because it will be too much to reinstall the phone, which the back door allows, I hate it.
Yes, I'm just a small person, but there are people who have really valuable information about it.
And if I blow myself up somewhere, the phone probably won't survive.
However, this will also apply to the acquisition of BÚ and the like.
Not everyone wants someone to withdraw their account. For example, in connection with Apple Pay, quite easy if they change your password through the back door.
lol it doesn't have to have that kind of functionality, no one says they can call me with that phone when they update it with a new firmware :D the only thing you want is to be able to unlock it and extract data
it's unnecessary paranoia and throwing a stick at the feet of powerful members
and in democratic states, government officials are primarily believed not to fail and to practically do what they can for the well-being of their citizens (although adults with childish views often question this)
After the WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden and the appeasement of European politicians (an ally), no one trusts the American secret and security forces. Before that, it was paranoia, but after it was confirmed, it's a fact.
I also know from my own experience that many Americans are disgusted by the functioning of these components and do not trust them. Or do you really believe that the NSA eavesdropped on Merkel and UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon in the interest of the well-being of the American people? :D
Exactly. For KK - there is more, recently - about the end of spring 2015 - for example, it came to light that the FBI falsified evidence in more than 250 cases and was fundamentally wrong - including in more than 30 DEATH PENALTY cases.
These organizations, when they want to get rid of someone, they "find proof", even if they have to suck it out of their finger.
And some "welfare" of the citizens is only a by-product for them - the main content of these organizations is spying, collecting valuable information and consolidating power.
Apple has made security a separate product, and users are listening. And these are not only criminals and terrorists, but mainly entrepreneurs (trade secrets, business strategies) and politicians. In addition, if the FBI forces Apple to break the security, terrorists will start using something else.
It's the same with banks, for example bank secrecy in Switzerland. Elsewhere, for example, anonymous bank accounts were created as a response to pressure from the security forces to provide data - banks will provide them with information, but since the account is anonymous, they will not be able to find out which account it is based on personal data. In the end, the state will lose because even if you convict someone for embezzlement, for example, they will serve it and the money will remain in a foreign account.
And to add to that list of things, as far as I know, Apple doesn't make iPhones in the US. Then the file would come to the point that it will start producing a special version for the US market, which the FBI will get into and the rest of the world will get classic iPhones, fully secured. The terrorist must bring the secured version from China and Apple in the USA, then the FBI will refer to the Chinese branch/distribution of Apple and have it unlocked there, because in the USA they only do unsecured things.
so as far as the bank accounts are concerned, you are completely wrong and practically every bank in the EU and developed countries reports to the US about the owners and it's not the bank's business, it's the law of the given country :), it doesn't even have to be about the one to whom the account is open the important thing is the beneficiary, maybe you would know that if you were in that field, but you obviously don't do that and just grind shit. bank secrets and anonymous credit cards are nice, but when the going gets tough, the bank always takes out the data. the time of tax havens and anonymous finances in the end of the world, at least in the civilized world
yes, apple created a product out of security and that's why they are defending it now. because it's PR. in any case, the argument that if this is allowed, the bad guys will start using something else, is not valid. you could say that….if we ban heroin, they will find another drug…if we ban the sale of rocket launchers, they will buy machine guns….
and as for my example, let's say that for a long time, and maybe it will continue to be so, advanced technologies in the field of encryption are not allowed to be exported from the USA. if it were to be said that it is anything from apple, then they simply cannot sell it outside the US :] but they can directly ban them from selling it, and in that case not only terrorists will not be protected, but also normal people (i.e. the 99.999999% of people who the FBI is not interested) and why not, if they ban encryption for everyone, at least it will be an ass :)
You said it right - in developed countries :) and what about the less developed ones? The Caribbean island states, Hong Kong or Russia still observe bank secrecy as far as I know. Putin is certainly hot to start the FBI investigation :D
As far as regulation is concerned, we know from history that little is ever done. Prohibition - people smuggled alcohol anyway and the state just didn't get anything from it in taxes, drugs were also legal at the beginning and the state had income from taxes, so the drug lords have that income. I doubt that those who want to keep their communication secure will not look for other ways and in the end the security folders will not have any information (then they could use the aforementioned iCloud backup). And it's not about those who do something illegal, as you keep mentioning here, but rather politicians (see wiretapping of Merkel and other politicians) or businessmen (competitive struggle). After WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden and others, I don't believe that the modified firmware wouldn't get somewhere it doesn't belong. Some state investigator will want to improve his pension and sell it to someone.
I did not quite understand "you must not export advanced technologies in the field of encryption from the USA". iPhones are manufactured in China, where most of the software is also uploaded. Furthermore, I don't know what is advanced about the technology "if you enter 10 times a 4-digit code, the data will be deleted from the phone"
It's all about wagging the dog. The FBI wants to divert attention from its inability to effectively fight terrorism and is trying to create the impression that the good FBI only wants to protect people and the evil Apple is preventing it from doing so, and also to get a backdoor into iOS, which it has been trying to do since the first iPhone.
But I understand that it is easier to solve the consequences than the causes of terrorism in general. It's all about the fact that they should pay attention to the prevention of terrorism and other threats with their inflated budget. But that doesn't fit in the shop. If there was no terrorism, they would lose power, their budget would be reduced and they would not be able to restrict people's freedom so much, under the pretext of public safety. That's why it bothers me so much.
It's just that you would have to transfer the income from the activity to those states as well without anyone knowing about it and the GL
you can classify advanced as - unless the FBI gets involved based on a court order, you cannot manufacture, offer, sell it as a company registered in the USA
The FBI doesn't want to divert attention, it's APPLE that's marketing that if you want 100% security, you should buy an iPhone and not the competition
terrorism prevention is bullshit, you'll never figure it out from the meager per million crazed maniacs in the population. A sincere worshiper of Allah has no desire to harm anyone, they are just maniacs and easily manipulated individuals, a pure interplay of circumstances and chance, and boom, it turns out to be an assassin, which must be found in 6 billion ordinary people every few weeks, and that's all
Apple has had security as a product for a long time, and if it wanted to do marketing, it wouldn't give them iCloud backups. The FBI started to make a media case out of it - so why didn't they just ask them and force them after they refused? Investigators go to televised meetings and I explain how much I need it
Otherwise, according to the FBI's definition, terrorism is always politically motivated, attacks are long-term planned and thought out, just the act of a deranged individual. Terrorism can be prevented - most attacks have a political undertone and this is the reason why terrorist groups arise in politically unstable regions. Farok of San Bernardino sympathized with the Islamic State.
The stabilization of these regions and the transfer of a disputed point (e.g. independence) to the diplomatic level can reduce the number of terrorists. A person from a developed state, where he does not lack anything and lives happily with his family, will not go to fire into the crowd for political reasons. But if they are desperate, live on the fringes of society without a better future in sight, then it is more likely that they will join a terrorist group.