Q&A: A look at the Apple vs US Justice Dept. court fight

Q&A: A look at the Apple vs US  Justice Dept. court fight
In this photo taken Nov. 15, 2015, Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks in Milan, Italy. A U.S. magistrate judge has ordered Apple to help the FBI break into a work-issued iPhone used by one of the two gunmen in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, a significant legal victory for the Justice Department in an ongoing policy battle between digital privacy and national security. Apple CEO Tim Cook immediately objected, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal fight between Silicon Valley and the federal government. (AP Photo/Luca Bruno)

A U.S. magistrate judge has ordered Apple to help the FBI break into a work-issued iPhone used by a gunman in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Apple chief executive Tim Cook immediately objected, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal fight between high-tech region Silicon Valley and the federal government.

Here's a look at the case so far:



Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, a former federal prosecutor, ordered Apple Inc. to help the FBI hack into an encrypted iPhone used by Syed Farook, who along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people in December in the worst terror attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. The phone was provided to him by San Bernardino County, where he worked as a government health inspector. Prosecutors say they don't know whether anything relevant is on the phone but can't access the information because they don't know the password and Apple won't cooperate.



Federal law enforcement and leading technology companies have long been at an impasse about how to balance digital privacy for consumers against the responsibility of federal agents and police to investigate crimes or terrorism. The Obama administration has acknowledged encryption as valuable for privacy protection but, until now, had struggled to identify a major case that shows how Apple's encryption can hobble their investigations.



The judge's order forces Apple to create and supply highly specialized software that the FBI can load onto the iPhone. That software would bypass a self-destruct feature that erases the phone's data after too many unsuccessful attempts to guess the passcode. The FBI wants to be able to try different combinations in rapid sequence until it finds the right one.



The Justice Department said it's asking Apple only to help unlock the iPhone used by Farook. The judge said the software should include a "unique identifier" so that it can't be used to unlock other iPhones. But it's unclear how readily the software could be adapted to work against other phones. And the FBI would likely share its new tool with U.S. intelligence agencies—and possibly foreign allies—that are investigating global terrorism.

Cook warned, "Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks—from restaurants and banks to stores and homes."



Prosecutors say they think the device could hold clues about who the couple communicated with before and after the shooting and where they traveled.



The government asked the judge to rule in its favor in a 40-page court filing submitted without Apple's participation. After the ruling, in a strongly worded message to its customers early Wednesday, Cook warned that the judge's order would set a "dangerous precedent." He said the company was being asked to take an "unprecedented step" that would threaten the security of Apple's customers. The company defended its use of encryption as the only way to keep its customers' personal data—their music, private conversations and photos— from being hacked. The statement foreshadows a fierce legal fight.



Pym relied on the 1789 All Writs Act, which has been used many times in the past by the government to require a third party to aid law enforcement in its investigation. Apple's CEO said the government was trying to dangerously expand what the law requires a third party to do. He said the government could require Apple to build surveillance software or more to help . In a months-long federal case in New York, another federal judge has delayed ruling on whether the law can compel Apple to help the government break the security on its devices. That case remains pending.

Explore further

Apple to fight order to help FBI unlock shooter's iPhone

© 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Q&A: A look at the Apple vs US Justice Dept. court fight (2016, February 17) retrieved 16 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-02-qa-apple-justice-dept-court.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 17, 2016
This is rather silly. Apple has no reason to comply. Plus, compliance could expose the entire corporation's product. Also, it's after the fact. Try checking that the NRA did not set these people up, or that something is wrong with your vetting, or you have a problem other than Apple. Jeez, leave the people alone! We do not have to relinquish our rights because you say so. The failure of the FBI is not Apple's failure. Come into the 21st century with the correct tools, not spying on the innocent. Fix your problems with "haters".

Feb 19, 2016
Since this is a minor case (as mass shootings or planning minor terrorist attacks are fairly regular fare in the US, unfortunately), if Apple is forced to comply "in this one time issue", it will only open the floodgates for similar requests -- ultimately leading to requests as frequent as common search warrants today.

In time, that would force Apple to either hire thousands of people for the job, or to actually install a permanent back door in its products.

Since the hand sets are made overseas, Apple could move its head quarters abroad, as many pharma companies have done (for tax reasons), out of reach of such coercion. Then, at least, Apple could sell non-backdoored phones to the rest of the world. But it is hard to imagine they'd actually do it.

If the next president is a Republican, then this entire legal battle is useless, because we can all guess what he'd do -- and he'll have the all the support he needs for this in Washington DC.

Interesting times, what can I say.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more