Why Apple will not give the police the virtual keys to unlock two iPhones used in the terrorist act last month in Florida? That question is at the center of a debate between the company and the FBI.
Attorney General William Barr said Monday that the firing at a Navy base in Pensacola was an act of terrorism and Apple has not provided federal investigators with “substantive assistance” to offer a way to access phones beyond encryption and security features, or a call back door.
Apple rejected with a strong rebuttal, saying it helped investigators within a few hours of the first FBI request on December 6 and subsequent requests, which resulted in “many gigabytes of information we gave them.” This information was found in phone backups stored in iCloud instead of directly on the device and included account and transactional data for several accounts. “In each case, we responded with all the information we had,” Apple wrote in its statement.
The conflict lies in the push and attraction of protecting individual privacy instead of allowing law enforcement to have easy access to the devices that hold many of our secrets.
This is the same battle that the FBI fought with Apple in 2015, again related to an iPhone used in terrorist acts. After a massive shooting that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, the FBI took Apple to court to have the company unlock an iPhone recovered from one of the shooters. Finally, the FBI used an external contractor to hack the device.
Question: What is behind Apple’s refusal to create a “backdoor” that allows law enforcement to bypass encryption?
Reply: Apple has long insisted that its efforts focus on protecting consumer privacy and the sensitive financial and health data we store on our devices.
“Encryption is vital for the services we trust,” Apple’s senior global policy director Jane Horvath said last week at a panel at the CES technology industry trade show. “The phones are relatively small and are lost and stolen. If you are going to be able to rely on having our health and financial data on our devices, then we must make sure that if you lose that device, you will not lose your confidential data. “
Horvath said that although a backdoor to encryption is not the way to address the problem of abusive or criminal behavior, Apple has helped solve many cases and avoided suicides with other methods.
According to Apple’s “transparency report,” the company has responded to 127,000 requests from US law enforcement agencies. UU. In the last seven years.
Q: Why not create a backdoor just for the “good guys”?
A: Apple argues that there is no such thing, because such a backdoor could be exploited by malicious entities, including foreign governments that could threaten our national security. In the same CES panel as Horvath, Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter said: “While I am very sensitive to the desire for a back door for good legal reasons of law enforcement, you cannot create a back door for the good that neither create a back door for the bad guys. “
However, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella called these backdoors a “terrible idea,” since The Verge reported that this time it did not give Apple the same full support as in 2015 after the San Bernardino attack.
“We have always said that we care about these two things: privacy and public safety,” he said. “We need some legal and technical solution in our democracy so that both are priorities.” … We cannot take difficult positions on all sides … (but if they are) asking me for a back door, I will say no. ”
Women of the centuryWho inspires you? USA TODAY seeks its Women of the Century to commemorate the 19th Amendment
Q: Can the phones be decrypted?
A: While the case of San Bernardino was developing, the answer turned out to be affirmative, but it is not easy or necessarily quick. The FBI announced that the third party that helped him was able to enter a telephone used by one of the terrorists in March 2016; The attack took place the previous December.
Even if it were a simpler process and technology companies could build a backdoor for presumably the right reasons, two enduring questions are who decides who the good guy is and under what legal, ethical and moral circumstances researchers should be given. the key.
Email: [email protected]; Follow @edbaig On twitter