Apple Versus The U.S Government: How it Went Down and Why It's Important

Over the past few weeks Apple has been making headlines due to their ongoing battle with the US Government. The FBI now wants to strong-arm Apple...
  1. fbi.jpg

    Over the past few weeks Apple has been making headlines due to their ongoing battle with the US Government. There have been multiple cases where the FBI has wanted information on an iPhone but were unable to get past the phone’s encryption. The FBI now wants to strong-arm Apple and have them break their own encryption to get evidence that might be on the work phone of a terrorist. Apple has refused to do such a thing, so this debate has been brought to the courts. The implications and precedents that this dispute carries go much further than any of the individual FBI case. In this article, I’ll lay out how everything went down, take a look at the motivations of the parties involved, and discuss why this is all so important.

    The core of the issue is the role of encryption in the justice system. The narrative of needing to get rid of encryption has been going on for a very long time, but the discussion was amplified following the tragic attacks that took place in Paris on November 13, 2015. After this happened, many people were at the throats of tech companies blaming encryption for the atrocities that took place. Despite the fact that it was eventually discovered encrypted SMS was the terrorists’ main method of communication, political figureheads, such as David Cameron, still sought out backdoors and an end to encryption.

    A few months later, another tragic attack happened in San Bernadino which once again sparked a heated debate around encryption. In this case, the FBI has possession of the attackers phone but they don’t know the PIN number that unlocks the phone. The FBI turned to U.S. Judge Sheri Pym so they could force Apple to break the encryption on the phone. The CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, responded a day later with an open letter announcing that he will be not be complying with the court and will challenge their decision.

    This situation is exposed for what it really is when you consider the motivations behind the FBI’s actions. In reality, the FBI isn’t just concerned about the San Bernardino case. In fact, they had access to a six-week old backup of the phone, and they could have gained an up-to-date backup if they simply took the phone to a recognized network. Instead, the FBI attempted to change the password of the iCloud account which locked them out of the data they wanted. While this specific mistake seems to be due to incompetence on the FBI’s behalf, the US Government is well aware of the implications of unlocking the phone.

    By asking Apple to break the encryption on the one phone, they would be weakening the encryption on every other iOS device. Currently there is no one that can get passed Apple’s encryption, not even Apple. In order to get data on the phone, Apple would need to create a backdoor for the government. This can have some really negative consequences because a backdoor is essentially an artificial vulnerability, and once there is a vulnerability in the software it can be attacked by anyone. Considering iPhones are so widely used, there are a lot of people that want access to them for nefarious reasons, and we know that in a lot of cases hackers are one step ahead of law enforcement.

    It’s also necessary to take a look at what exactly the FBI wants from Apple. The FBI isn’t simply asking Apple to get into this one phone, but rather create a tool for them that is capable of getting past the encryption. This does not only mean that the FBI can use this tool on any iPhone, but it also means there will need to be a lot of transparency within the legal system. Jonathan Zdziarski is is well versed in this subject matter and has even taught law enforcement agencies about iOS forensics. He recently made a blog post explaining how if Apple was to make such a tool, it would need to be heavily reviewed and explained to the courts. This means the tool and how it works will be known by many people, which makes nefarious abuse of a backdoor much more likely.

    Even though the government's war against encryption has only recently began to make headlines, it is something that has been going on for a very long time. Two decades ago, in 1996, the US had encryption export regulations for international devices. This regulation made it so that international software from the US cannot have encryption stronger than 40 bits. This was a fairly significant problem because 40-bit encryption could be attacked via brute force and bypassed using regular desktop computers. A tech company, Lotus, was unhappy with this and attempted to try to create stronger encryption within the government’s standards. They did this by using 64-bit encryption, but gave a 24-bit key to the NSA. This key eventually became public knowledge, so anyone could attack the encryption as if it was only 40 bits.

    One thing that is even more concerning than the key itself is how it is referred to within the software. Someone who reverse engineered the software in search for the key found that it is referred to as “MiniTruth”, which is a reference to Orwell’s fictional agency dedicated to propaganda, and “Big Brother”. Now it should be noted that it is likely Lotus who put these names in the software. Regardless, it shows how the NSA was viewed before the modern anti-terrorism narrative. It’s also worth noting that during this time the NSA was a lot more transparent, as Lotus disclosed the relationship they had with the NSA. Ray Ozzie, the man who invented Lotus notes, has recently said, “it pains me to see such a lack of transparency in how our elected officials are running our government.”

    By looking at the behavior of the Department of Justice, it’s clear that they don’t necessarily care too much about the San Bernardino phone by itself. They already have had access to the iCloud backups and the phone itself is only a work phone. The reason the FBI has made such a big deal out of this specific case is because it’s an easy way to appeal to the emotions of citizens by utilizing the narrative of a war on terrorism. Of course, no one likes terrorism. The attacks in San Bernardino were tragic and hardly anyone is against the FBI seeing what was on the terrorist’s iPhone. The problem is that weakening encryption isn’t just stopping the terrorists, but it is also impeding the privacy of civilians.

    It’s clear that weakening encryption for everyone isn’t the answer when it comes to criminal investigations involving technology. That being said, there still needs to be a discussion to figure out what the answer should be. Unfortunately, the technology we have today is vastly different than what existed when most of the laws and regulations were created. Information is no longer kept on pieces of paper stored in a secure location. Instead, it is stored on devices that are connected to the world wide web and needs to be protected from the potential cyber threats.

    As of now, there isn’t a logical way to give law enforcement access and keep the bad guys away at the same time. It is also important to always remember the true motivations behind the government, because us citizens need a way to protect their privacy. Maybe once we see more advancement in encryption and technology together building in backdoors might be a viable option if used properly. Until then, Apple seems to have the right idea by completely locking down their customer’s information with backdoor-free encryption.

    Sources: ArsTechnica, Gizmodo, ReCode, USSRBack, Cypherspace, Jonathan Zdziarski, TechCrunch, Y Combinator

    Share This Article

    About Author

    Monopolyman
    I am a young writer who is passionate about gaming and technology. PC is my preferred platform, but I appreciate all forms of video games. I enjoy voicing my opinion in the articles I write, but also like to keep our readers informed on the latest news.

Comments

To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. Revonix v
    I don't believe in the gvt's actions for this case. The way they are handling it is terrible. If Apple doesn't want them in, just lay back. No need to take it into court at all. F.I.B was being ***** and it's just retarded. They are being asshats:asshat:
  2. myDarling
    I'm still fairly convinced the FBI could potentially get whatever it is that they want off that phone. They're just saying they can't get into it to try to fuel people to support the idea of a backdoor which would just make retrieving information from phones easier and more global for them.
  3. SSL
    I think its stupid that apple refuses to help the F.B.I Obtain information of a killer, and after this case, many more. Apple has their little talk on privacy, but isn't this a little more important than the F.B.I gets the info they needed? So what if they read a text between a killer and his mother, or a selfie of him. I thought apple turned alot of heads when they said no.
    1. Nagato
      wat did i just read
    2. myDarling
      >Lets give the government potential access to most phones in the country because one terrorist had one.

      This is literally letting the terrorists win, it's essentially what they want.
      SSL likes this.
    3. Vendetta for V
      No it's not stupid. Declaring war on a noun no one wins. So giving up privacy for a war on "terrorism" that's like giving me your car because I asked for it. There is a valid reason why Apple didn't do this. I'm not Apple fan boy far from it. Android or die. But I respect apples decision. They realize you can defeat a noun. So they do what they know can be done. Keep your and my privacy safe
  4. cheeeeeeetoh
  5. 3xTiNcT
    I've been thinking and maybe this is them trying to cover up the fact they can gain access anyways.
  6. Alexi
    This entire article is very inaccurate but I'm not about to go and rewrite it and explain every individual point. So instead I'll try to clear up a few of the errors.

    The FBI is in fact asking Apple to only give them to access to one phone. This is known by the documents filed in court, as well as from the letters and analysis given by various concerned parties. The FBI is asking Apple to write a specific version of the iOS operating system that will allow them to bypass the data erasing security measures, as well as the anti brute force functions. They are asking for a version of iOS which Apple is internally calling "GovtOS" that the FBI is capable of unlocking through a brute force attack on the PIN for the phone.

    Apple has stated that the precedent set by this single use tool for one specific phone is enough to cause concern as it could be used to leverage other possible cases against other companies.

    I can't comment directly on the US legal system as I have never thoroughly examined it but there is already a huge lack of transparency between departments and agencies, as documents released from the Snowden leaks and other whistle blowers have shown. A tool such as this without any oversight would be a cause for concern.

    Going on, Mr. Zdziarski, although an expert in iOS forensics, overlooked a major part of the Apple vs. FBI battle. The FBI has outright said that Apple could keep complete ownership of the software their developers write for them. They would not be obliged to release the source code to the FBI, explain how the tool works, or publish any sort of materials relating to the GovtOS tool. This means that the courts would not have the tool explained to them, nor would there be "many people" with knowledge of how this backdoor works.

    Finally, Apple has already won a similar court case pertaining to an iPhone 5s in a federal court in New York State where Apple was not required to unlock a phone belonging to a convicted drug dealer.


      Monopolyman likes this.
    1. Alexi
      For the record, I fully agree with Apple's stance on this matter. Regardless of what the person has done or what may be on that phone, the DOJ and FBI have both made massive errors that should have not been made in the first place. Even still, the FBI could make an attempt at cracking the PIN without help from Apple. This entire court case is just a massive smoke screen in an attempt to have an unprecedented, sweeping deconstruction of encrypted communication at a global level. French courts are already trying to order businesses and cell phone providers/manufactures to decrypt their phones. Similar calls to action have been heard across the parliaments of the Commonwealth as well.

      Also the title is VERY misleading. There has been no decision reached in this case yet and it is still in litigation. The first court date I believe in still set for March 22nd.

      Sources:
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/feds-fire-back-on-san-bernardino-iphone-noting-that-apple-has-accommodated-china/
      http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/03/there-are-ways-the-fbi-can-crack-the-iphone-pin-without-apple-doing-it-for-them/
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/secret-court-approves-classified-rule-change-on-how-fbi-can-use-nsa-data/
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/apple-prevails-in-forced-iphone-unlock-case-in-new-york-court/
      Monopolyman likes this.
    2. Monopolyman
      Just replying to thank you for linking me to these sources. Upon further reading of the original order it seems there was oversight when it comes to the reporting of the uniqueness of the SIF. This was overlooked by many publications, and I also take responsibility for not correcting it in my own research. I personally still thinks it's unclear of the type of assistance they government requested, making it unclear whether the custom SIF would be regarded as a instrument within the courts. I really don't think anyone outside of the legal system could accurately say how that will play out, and I think there is bias on both sides of the argument. Tomorrow I will research this a bit more in depth then I will update the article accordingly. Again, thanks.
      Alexi likes this.
  7. runman
    the only privacy you have is in your head. once its written down it not privet anymore its just there for others to eventually find
    1. View previous replies...
    2. runman
      maybe im screwed then lol.
    3. hoopsure
      Maybe we all are. Maybe all our presidential candidates will turn the US in to a communist country.
    4. Revonix v
      I'll agree with a communist country only if I get anal from Trump daily.
  8. runman
    when will people learn you cant win against big governments. they will just make a law forcing it to be handed over. this is a dumb move by apple that will now affect us all. Apple should be hassled to hell for the stupidity. they should have just handed it over again because they already handed it over now there making a big song and dance trying to look like the good guy when they already unlocked it for the gov. they have no leg to stand on they already set a precedent
    1. Nagato
    2. runman
      my government changed a law when people took them to the high court. the law came into affect when it was in the high court the judges had no option but to dismiss the case. I live in Australia and the case was about the refuges being settled outside of Australia when they arrived in Australia by boats . this happened a few weeks ago. governments have the luxury to change laws you and I don't.
    3. Nagato
      I didn't know the government did that. smh
  9. Red58
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
    - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Monopolyman
      This is actually a misquote. The real quote is, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also not known if Ben Franklin was the one who said it. Either way, it was a quote that Franklin at the very least agreed with and the it is still very true and relevant.
      Red58 likes this.
    2. Red58
      There's like several differently worded versions of this quote, so i wasn't sure which one was the most accurate. I wish it was known who said it, definitely was one of the great minds of that era.
  10. Nagato
    Apple for the win!
    1. Red58
      Srsly tho, dat Pain Saga.