By Diego GragliaTheDailyDG correspondent Silicon Valley
Apple and its iPhone, Federal Justice and the FBI, and the investigation of the terrorist attack are San Bernardino makings of a controversy that national security and individual privacy intersect.
technology company said it is willing to resist an order of a judge to unlock the phone of one of the perpetrators of the attack in California.
This sparked a debate on even among our readers, whether law enforcement agencies should have access to private information contained in digital devices.
Here, we answer some of the main doubts about the case and its consequences.
what do they want the FBI and the Department of Justice?
One of the attackers St. Bernardino, Syed Farook had an iPhone that got him in his work in the county. All iPhones since 2014 have a function that erases the contents if anyone tries to enter unlock many wrong passwords.
The authorities want Apple to develop a technology solution that would allow him to try thousands or millions of passwords to unlock it.
The White House, through its spokesman Josh Earnest, supported the position of the investigators and the judge’s ruling Sheri Pym. “You should have access to this phone and said Apple should disable automatic deletion phone security.”
Why Apple refuses?
the company believes this tool to create a dangerous precedent, as it would any other phone vulnerable.
Its CEO Tim Cook wrote in a statement: “The government that this tool could be used only once, on a phone. But that simply is not true. Once created, this technique could be used again and again in any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key able to open hundreds of millions of locks, from banks to restaurants to shops to homes. “
The FBI can not unlock by force?
Its director, James Comey, he says no.
“San Bernardino (s) very important to us said at a hearing in the Senate a few days ago research. We still have a phone from one of these murderers we could not open. And go over two months and continue working on it. “
Why is this case important?
Because it represents a clear example of how the public safety may conflict with the privacy of individuals.
This has been a very heated debate among security agencies, who want more access to digital communications, and the technology industry, which does not want to lose the trust of its users.
Comey, FBI, said before the Senate Intelligence committee that if the companies refuse to obey these injunctions, “the risk is that we can not prove our research and some bad guy will go free” .
ITI, a council of industry representing Apple, Google, Facebook, and many more companies, last year sent a letter to President Barack Obama who said he was against “any policy or measure that weaken encryption as a tool available and effective “.
” consumer confidence in the products and he added digital services is an essential component that enables continued economic growth of the online market. “
What is the ‘back door’ of a digital device?
The term is used as a reference to a technology that is available in encrypted devices (like mobile phones) to allow security agencies access private data after obtaining a court order .
“asked us to create a back door to enter the iPhone,” Cook, the director of Apple wrote. “The FBI wants us to create a new version of the iPhone operating system, it dodges several important security features, and we install on an iPhone found during research. If it falls into the wrong hands, this software, which does not exist today, has the potential to unlock any iPhone to someone with physical access. ”
However, Comey, FBI denied that’s what his agency seeks. “I do not want a back door, do not want a window, do not want a sliding glass door he said before the Senate. What I would like is for people to comply with court orders. ”
Earnest, White House also denied on Wednesday. The Justice Department, said, “There you are asking Apple to redesign the product, or to create a new ‘back door’ to that product. Just ask something that would impact on this unique device.”
Kevin Bankston of the Open Technology Institute, believes that what the judge orders him to Pym Apple is to “create a malicious software to undermine the security of his own product (…). According to a survey I did of technologists to discuss the issue on Twitter, it is not clear whether Apple can do that technically or how difficult it would be. “
Does the government only would use these tools to investigate potential terrorist?
No. Comey, FBI, said that access to telephones serve for that, but “especially” for investigations of state and local police. (Your return is at 1:05 pm on video).
“Because our lives are becoming more digital time, these devices will have evidence of child pornography, communications someone has had before being killed or disappear, evidence that is necessary to solve a crime he said. and it includes things like car accidents. “
” it has an impact on our national security work, he added, but mostly it is a problem they see the local law enforcement agencies. “
What previous sitting for user privacy?
Cook, Apple argues it is “a dangerous precedent”. Legal experts agree progressive organizations.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement that “this is an unprecedented, uncritical and illegal government. The Constitution does not allow the government force companies to hack devices customers (…) If the FBI can compel Apple to hack devices your customers, then you also can do any repressive regime in the world “.
” This is not about a single iPhone, “said Bankston, the Institute for Open Technology. “This is all our programs and all our devices. And if this precedent is established shall mean a digital disaster for the reliability of computers and mobile phones of all. “
What would that do to catch more terrorists and criminals?
> No, says a survey of encryption programs just published by Bruce Schneier, a visiting scholar at Harvard University.
Criminals would easily use products of non-US companies to avoid law enforcement agencies, says Schneier, who found over 500 of these programs.
“a US law that would make mandatory the rear doors first affect people who are not worried about being watched by the government (…) says the study-. These people would be exposed to abuses of these backdoors by cybercriminals and other governments “.
What’s next in the court case?
Apple has five days to tell the judge if you think you can fulfill your order. Cook already anticipated that the company will be denied.
“We are opposed to that order, which has implications beyond the case is clarified,” he said. He said he wanted a public debate on such measures.
Once you hear the official denials, the judge “can keep the original order, change it or not order Apple to give assistance,” the FBI said Josh Bell, spokesman for the ACLU.
“The losing side may appeal to the higher courts.”
Is there a path that does not pass through the courts?
Industry tech , through the council ITI supports the ENCRYPT bipartisan bill that seeks to prevent states enact their own laws before the Congress decides on matter.
But ENCRYPT not attack the main theme, just looking to stop a couple of bills anti-encrypted in California and New York.
Sen. Mark Warner and Republican Congressman Michael McCaul recently proposed creating a national committee of security experts and technology to discuss the issue and propose solutions.
But, yes, and advanced that oppose the “gatekeepers” because information systems weaken further.
No comments:
Post a Comment