Apple vs FBI
Image Source: https://rb.gy/aopuqx

This article is written by Vanya Verma from Alliance University, Bengaluru. This article talks about the legal battle between Apple and the FBI and why it was so controversial, the parties supporting both sides, and finally the outcome of the case.

Introduction

The case was one of the most high-profile conflicts between the government and a technology company in the dispute over encryption and data privacy.

The conflict between Apple Inc. and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) brought the tension between privacy and national security to the public’s notice. The FBI ordered Apple to provide anti-encryption software to retrieve information that was encrypted inside an iPhone 5C after the 2015 San Bernardino attack, the phone belonged to one of the shooters. It’s unclear what information the FBI was looking for on the shooter’s phone, but the encrypted data included emails, calendar data, text messages, images, and contacts.

Download Now

In February 2016, Apple publicly rejected the Court order, citing the need to protect customers’ data from “hackers and criminals” and Apple claimed that they “put that data out of their reach” because it is “none of their business.”

To know the full story and who won the battle let’s read further.

Facts of the case

The dispute between Apple and the FBI started after an application was filed by the FBI with a federal magistrate judge in California, requesting assistance with the search of an iPhone confiscated during the investigation into the San Bernardino attacks in December 2015.

The FBI was unable to access data on an encrypted iPhone, that belonged to the San Bernardino Health Department but was used by one of the criminals, Syed Farook, the shooter who killed 14 people in San Bernardino in December 2014, so they asked the court to order Apple to assist them in decrypting the phone. 

The judge ordered Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance” to US authorities, which would require overhauling the system that disables the phone after ten failed password attempts. All data on the phone becomes inaccessible once this feature is activated. Apple turned down the FBI’s request for assistance.

The FBI sought an order mandating Apple to construct a custom operating system that would disable key security protection features on the iPhone because Apple had no way of accessing the encrypted data on the seized iPhone. The Court issued an order directing Apple to produce and install this custom hacking tool without unlocking or otherwise altering the data on the phone.

Apple objected to the order, claiming that it is illegal and unconstitutional. Apple claimed that granting the order will endanger all Apple products’ security and set a dangerous precedent for future cases.

Apple chief executive Tim Cook described the order as “chilling” at that time, claiming that it would necessitate the development of new software that would serve as “a master key capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks.” Cook said that if the FBI gained access to this iPhone, nothing was stopping them from doing the same to many others.

According to law enforcement officials, this was a one-time request. As a result, the matter was brought before the court.

It was claimed by the law authorities that encryption used by companies like Apple makes it more difficult for them to solve cases and prevent terrorist attacks.

Technology companies retaliated, claiming that encryption is essential for keeping user data safe from hackers.

What did the FBI want

The FBI requested that Apple change a file known as a SIF (System Information File). The FBI in this context was referring to the software that runs on the device. It wanted Apple to design a new SIF for Farook’s iPhone that will allow it to perform functions that other iPhones do not permit. According to the FBI, Apple’s concern for its customers’ privacy cannot legally justify hampering the investigation of threats to public safety.

The FBI wanted to:

Prevent the phone from erasing itself

If certain security settings are enabled, an iPhone can wipe personal data after 10 failed attempts to unlock the phone by entering a password. This is something that the FBI did not want to happen on Farook’s phone.

Automate the process of trying out different passcode combinations

Farook used a four-digit passcode that had 10,000 different possible combinations. The FBI didn’t want to guess them all manually, so it wanted Apple to let them try the passcode electronically. This means that the FBI could simply tell a computer to test each passcode, which would take minutes, if not seconds.

Without unnecessary delay

Each time you input a passcode incorrectly, the iPhone restricts you from doing so for longer and longer periods. The FBI wanted this major obstacle removed.

Control the procedure, but does not know how it’s done 

This is an intriguing line because it implies that the FBI is willing to let Apple work on the iPhone at its headquarters in a way that it doesn’t expose the encryption software to the public.

The FBI argued that the SIF will only work on Farook’s phone and will be known only to Apple, who could choose to destroy it, as this case moved through courts.

Arguments put forth by Apple

  • Apple and its supporters, which included prominent internet giants like Google and Facebook, argued on numerous fronts that the court decision endangered everyone’s privacy.
  • Firstly, Apple claimed that the court order effectively forced the firm to develop a code, infringing on the firm’s First Amendment right to free speech by compelling it to “say” something it didn’t want to say. Computer code had already been established as legally protected speech in previous court cases.
  • Secondly, once constructed, such a backdoor could slip into the wrong hands, threatening the privacy of all iPhone users. 
  • Finally, it would set a dangerous precedent; law enforcement bodies could repeatedly require businesses such as Apple to assist in criminal investigations, effectively making technology companies an agent of the government.

Arguments in support of Apple

Apple’s supporters in the technology industry, eager to protect their reputations above security, were backing the iPhone maker.

Whatsapp’s creator, Jan Koum, who is now the CEO of Facebook, wrote:

“We must not allow this dangerous precedent to be set. Today our freedom and our liberty are at stake.”

The Information Technology Industry Council, which represents Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Samsung, Blackberry, and plenty of other companies, released the following statement: 

“Our fight against terrorism is sought strengthened by the security tools and technologies created by the technology sector, so we must tread carefully given our shared goals of improving security, instead of creating insecurity.”

Google chief executive, Sundar Pichai said: “Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy.”

Edward Snowden, whose allegations about US government spying, provoked Apple’s stance on password-protected data, said that the FBI was “creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around”.

The United Nations Human Rights Chief expressed his dissatisfaction with the FBI order, stating the possibility of “the potential for extremely damaging implications” on human rights, journalists, whistleblowers, political dissidents, and others. He argued, an order like this is “potentially a gift to authoritarian regimes.” 

Who was backing the FBI

According to Jonathan Thompson, executive director of the National Sheriff’s Association, Apple’s failure to cooperate with FBI directives, places “profit over safety.” He went on to say, “this has nothing to do with privacy; it’s all about money and their brand.” The federal government claims to be worried about national security. He further argued that encryption made it more difficult for the FBI to solve crimes and prevent terrorist attacks.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said to the reporters that the FBI was “simply asking for something that would have an impact on this one device”. He said that the FBI had the White House’s full support in the case.

Donald Trump stated that he “100% agrees with the judges.” He told Fox News, “We should open it up.”

While much of the technological world has backed Apple’s position, other analysts believed that the company was misrepresenting the debate.

“The truth is that there is a protection in place: a warrant,” writer Jack Smith argued on mic.com.

“We should fight to make warrants difficult to obtain. But the real unprecedented feat is the idea that a corporation like Apple should be able to prevent our law enforcement from carrying out a lawfully obtained warrant.”

According to the family of the killed Fusilier Lee Rigby in the United Kingdom, Apple was “protecting a murderer’s privacy at the expense of public safety.”

The outcome of the case

The hearing was postponed after the government said that it had discovered a third party that could unlock the iPhone. As per the reports, Cellebrite, an Israeli company, was said to be involved, though the company never confirmed this.

The Department of Justice announced that it had gained access to the data on the iPhone in question and had urged the judge to dismiss the case. In a statement, the FBI said it couldn’t comment on the “technical aspects” of the iPhone’s unlocking or the third-party involvement.

Apple said that “We will continue to assist law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done in the past, and we will continue to improve the security of our products as threats and attacks on our data grows.” 

Who was the winner in this case

This appears to be the finest possible outcome from a difficult situation. Apple stood firm in its support for civil liberty.

Apple refused to comply with the demands of the FBI and got away with it, thus Apple seems to be a winner in this case. When it is analyzed further it can be seen that this is not the case. The FBI dropped this case as they had found another company that could break into the iPhone, it was discovered by the world that only a few would have suspected that Apple is not as secure as Apple wants its users to believe. 

Apple now understands that the method used by the FBI to bypass the security of Apple will inevitably go into the wrong hands. This means that now Apple has to contend with the possibility that at some other date in the future, this method could be used by the cybercriminals to further undermine the protection of customer data on the iPhone.

Apple said in a statement following the case’s dismissal, “From the beginning, we objected to the FBI’s demand that Apple builds a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent; neither of these things happened as a result of the government’s dismissal.” 

The FBI achieved its goal of gaining access to Farook’s iPhone. But still, there are some doubts regarding Apple’s security measures.

Though in the end, the FBI got what they wanted after spending around three months unsuccessfully fighting against Apple. The public nature of this fight might likely encourage other tech companies to build up stronger end-to-end encryption.

Similar controversy

Apple had resurfaced in the FBI’s sight as a result of two iPhones.

The phones belonged to a Saudi national who died in December 2019 after being accused of shooting three individuals at a Florida military facility. They could hold crucial information about his connections and motivations, but the phones were secured and the FBI claimed it wouldn’t be able to access them. It sought Apple’s assistance in unlocking the iPhones.

On the other hand, Apple said no for the purpose, even at the risk of attracting mocking tweets from Donald Trump.

This type of request has been heard before by Apple and technology security experts. It’s not about the phones, they say; it’s about the Department of Justice’s years-long quest for more government oversight of mobile technology. They claim that if Apple agrees to this request or something alike, it will risk the privacy of every iPhone user.

The debate over whether Apple should develop a mechanism to get into their phones was back almost after four years in an almost identical situation which ended with the FBI stepping down after private companies helped them crack the iPhone’s security. (The case of the San Bernardino attack in 2015)

The situation, on the other hand, has changed. Apple’s own ability to break iPhone encryption is limited, so it may not be able to do much even if it wanted to, while Facebook and other internet giants have pushed to embrace encryption in other forms, such as messaging apps, increasing the stakes of the battle.

Furthermore, the tech industry may be politically susceptible in ways it has never been before.

While the core argument remains the same, there’s no way to give the government access without creating a loophole that could be exploited by malicious people. It’s happening at a time when tech companies are routinely grilled on Capitol Hill, and the public is less inclined to believe that they know best.

According to computer industry veterans and academics, the Department of Justice sees a chance to not just crack a few iPhones, but also to use growing suspicion of tech companies to force legislative change that will render encryption moot in all contexts.

According to Nicholas Weaver, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, the FBI’s efforts to get Apple to crack its iPhones were “more dishonest than normal.” He stated, “It’s all about legislation, not the courts.”

Two iPhones at the issue belonged to the gunman who opened fire at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida in 2019, killing three people. The FBI’s efforts four years ago to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone from the San Bernardino shooting that killed 14 people, a battle that concluded with the agency hacking the phone’s security with the help of an outside company, had some similarities.

The iPhones in the Pensacola case had been identified as iPhone 5 and 7 models, which many technology experts believed the FBI would be able to unlock with the help of independent security firms.

So why is Attorney General William Barr formally asking Apple to release the key if the FBI can break into the iPhones? The reason appears to be rooted in the legal background of the case and the government’s desire for a permanent settlement.

Government officials had faced two major legal setbacks since the San Bernardino incident: a 2016 ruling in an unrelated but similar case in Brooklyn, New York, siding with Apple and never appealed, and a 2018 ruling in Fresno, California, though the case and ruling are sealed and the case is on appeal.

As a result, the Department of Justice’s legal options for pressuring internet corporations to crack their security measures have shrunk.

Pfefferkorn stated, “They have acknowledged that the law as it exists is not on the government’s side.”

The government held different opinions on whether the Department of Justice is taking the correct course of action. While Donald Trump urged Apple to cooperate with the FBI in a tweet, other agencies have expressed their displeasure with the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Conclusion

Hence, the differences between technology companies and the government are likely to continue. Several news outlets revealed that there have been numerous requests from law enforcement agencies across the country for Apple to help unlock other iPhones.

Apple will always want to know how the FBI got into the iPhone so that it can patch up the vulnerabilities in its software. The iPhone maker is likely to continue bolstering security in its software and devices. Though Apple might seem the winner by not allowing the FBI to unlock the iPhones, still the FBI with the help of a third party got access to the data it was looking for in the iPhones. Apple has now advanced its security features that even they can’t access the user’s data on iPhone even if they want to. Thus, making it more difficult for the FBI in future cases to hack into the phone. 

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here