Apple Vs. FBI: What’s The Fuss All About?
We help you understand all the background behind what’s becoming a landmark case of Government vs. Tech Companies
Apple, the Silicon Valley giant, is currently facing heat from the FBI and the stand-off has led to involving courts and lawyers, with much debate spilling over into various online platforms and even the corridors of power.
On February 16, 2016 United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym issued a court order that was served to Apple to help unlock an iPhone 5c. It asked the company to provide “reasonable technical assistance” to the federal agency to unlock the iPhone. Not a big deal right? Security agencies must do this all the time! Then why did this one get caught in the eye of this massive slugfest? Why have Apple and FBI locked horns?
It’s about user privacy. Read our earlier article to now why Apple’s reticent about providing FBI with unmitigated support in breaking into users’ phones. You should know Apple’s side of the story too.
First, why is the said phone important?
The iPhone 5c in question was used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, and FBI wants the data from the phone in order to further their investigation.
The iPhone 5c in question belonged to Syed Rizwan Farook, who on Dec. 2, 2015, with his wife Tafsheen Malik, killed 14 coworkers in San Bernardino, California. Later in the day, both died at the hands of the Police. They had however destroyed their personal phones by then and the iPhone in question is Farook’s work phone.
The only way for the FBI to gain access to the data is to break into the device in question. To add to this is the fact that the phone was not “owned” by Farook, but by the company that he worked for; it was only “used” by Farook as a company employee. As per the law, the actual “owner” of the phone has the right over the data within in, and not the user. Farook’s company has granted FBI the permission to access the data on the phone, and thus, FBI is firm and correct in its legal standing since the rightful owner of the property has allowed them access.
They however can not access the data because Farook’s company does not know the passcode to the phone, which is where FBI needs Apple’s help.
This also seems quite ordinary right?
It of course happens all the time; security agencies break into the devices owned by suspects and get the information they need. Has it never happened with Apple before?
Of course it has! For breaking into a user’s device by circumventing the security settings, Apple uses special tools that never leave the Apple headquarters to mitigate the threat of the tools being used maliciously.
The devices that need to be broken into are provided to Apple, Apple does its work back home in the secure confines of their headquarters and provides the recovered data to the agency (or whoever has requisitioned the legitimate requisition) in a flash-drive.
What’s the concern now, especially when even a court order has been issued demanding that Apple help the federal agency break into the phone?
Well, with the latest iOS upgrade, iOS 9 or above, the security settings on the phone have changed and breaking into the device is no longer a walk in the park, even for the guys back home at Apple.
If Apple chooses to help the FBI, they’ll need to write a program that allows the Feds to punch in “n” number of PINs, until they have the device unlocked. This would circumvent the time-delay security feature that kicks in if you punch in the wrong PIN, or the possibility of the data being destroyed via the self-erase feature after ten wrong PINs. The said program, if written, could also enable the agency to enter the PINs remotely using a computer program.
Why is Apple denying to help the FBI with their investigation then?
The company says that such a demand is unprecedented, where the federal agency is basically demanding that the people who have worked so hard to ensure the complete safety of the device now work to break the same security system.
To add to that it could also put consumer data at risk from cyber criminals, hackers, and it also gives FBI a permanent “backdoor entry” into the device, using “brute force”.
But, FBI says Apple is being asked to write the program only for one phone, then how does consumer data stand in risk, is a good question at this point!
On February 16, 2016 United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym issued a court order that was served to Apple to help unlock an iPhone 5c. It asked the company to provide “reasonable technical assistance” to the federal agency to unlock the iPhone.
The court has gone to the length of stating that the procedure be done at Apple’s location and the Feds be granted remote access to it. The problem however is that if such a program is written, then there is a chance, even if it is a miniscule one, that it might make its way out into the world and fall into the wrong hands quite easily.
That is a risk that exists with virtually everything that is supposed to be a top-secret — if one person makes a key to circumvent the system, it will not be long before that key makes its way out of the system and into the wrong hands.
That is the primary argument on Apple’s side. However, that’s not all there is to it.
There is a lot more to add to their argument. Tim Cook, the CEO, wrote an open letter to all his customers, stating that the court order set a dangerous precedent, and that Apple has already filed an appeal against it, demanding that it be scrapped. “The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge” read the letter.
He has been standing up against the order since the start, and has, along with his company, been facing FBI’s heat, and that of many other who are on the other side of the debate.
The silver lining in this is that he is not alone in this one. Companies such as Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter along with many others have all openly come up in support of Apple’s stand, and this is to a point where they might now be showing their support in court.
Another issues is that of “how many”, and where exactly does the buck stop! Currently there are about 12 cases that are similar and involve Apple devices such as iPhones or iPads.
If the company complies with the one order then it shall have to do so with the others. In a parallel case going on in New York involving a drug dealer and an Apple device, the judge ruled that Apple does not have to help unlock the device, and it can’t be asked to do so.
Let us go back here and question Apple’s legal standing for a minute. How is Apple choosing to violate a court order?
What the company says is that software is a part of protected speech and thus what the court order is asking it to do is directly in violation of the American Constitution. “The government’s request here creates an unprecedented burden on Apple and violates Apple’s First Amendment rights against compelled speech” they said. They added that the court order is asking them to do something against which the Congress has already rejected legislatures.
So, not only is the matter high-profile, it could also lead to a political debate.
The Apple vs. FBI battle has been going on for almost a month now, and does not seem to heading to a conclusion anytime soon.
Tomorrow, the Apple lawyer, Bruce Sewell, will appear before a Congressional Judiciary Committee over the matter. The argument he plans to present has already been made public, and goes so:
“Encryption is a good thing, a necessary thing” Sewell will argue. “We have been using it in our products for over a decade. As attacks on our customers’ data become increasingly sophisticated, the tools we use to defend against them must get stronger too. Weakening encryption will only hurt consumers and other well-meaning users who rely on companies like Apple to protect their personal information.”
We’re going to follow the case and see where it goes from here, will keep you updated.
Originally published at Chip-Monks.
