The U.S. Department of Justice said Monday that investigators were able to use a new technique to hack into an iPhone that was used by San Bernardino gunman Syed Farook.
As a result, the government "no longer requires the assistance from Apple" to break into the phone — and is dropping its efforts to compel Apple to crack its own iPhone encryption against its will.
In some sense, Apple is now off the hook. For the time being, the two sides have sidestepped a massive fight over the competing interests of national security and digital privacy — a fight in which Apple might have looked like it was siding against efforts to combat terrorism.
But the FBI's sudden success in circumventing Apple's security measures might raise new questions about whether Apple's products are truly ironclad. It will also lead to heightened speculation over the "outside party" that assisted the government at the last minute — and criticism from some quarters over the FBI's failure to hack into an iPhone on its own.
"Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that, with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that iPhone without compromising any information on the phone," U.S. Attorney Eileen M. Decker said in a statement. "We sought an order compelling Apple to help unlock the phone to fulfill a solemn commitment to the victims of the San Bernardino shooting — that we will not rest until we have fully pursued every investigative lead related to the vicious attack."
Apple's faceoff with the government started just over five weeks ago, when the Justice Department obtained a court order compelling Apple to assist the FBI in bypassing the lock screen of the iPhone 5C that Farook had used. Authorities had found the phone after Farook and his wife killed 14 people and wounded 22 more in San Bernardino, California, in December. But they were unable to unlock it and feared that too many attempts to guess the passcode would cause the phone to wipe its memory completely.
Apple fought the order vigorously in court and in the court of public opinion, arguing that any such assistance should be required by legislatures and not a judge. The government said it was seeking the company's help in just this one case, but Apple said that creating a workaround for one iPhone's encryption would set a "dangerous" precedent and imperil the security of all iPhone users.
Last week, less than 24 hours before a hearing was scheduled in the case, the government said it might have found an alternative method to gain access to the phone that didn't require Apple's assistance. Previously, prosecutors had argued that only Apple was capable of breaking in. Apple claimed that it didn't even have the technology to do so and would have had to create a new version of iOS it dubbed "govtOS."
The details of the government's newfound method of accessing the phone aren't clear — but clues suggest that the Israel-based security firm Cellebrite could be the FBI's white knight.
The FBI "successfully retrieved the data stored on the San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone," said Melanie Newman, a Justice Department spokeswoman. Though she said that investigators were "currently reviewing the information on the phone," she did not say whether there was any useful information on the phone at all. We may never know.
Apple did not immediately comment on the case Monday night.
Meanwhile, Apple is also fighting government orders to assist in bypassing an iPhone lock screen in an unrelated drug case in Brooklyn, New York. It's not clear whether the government could now use its new method in that case.
"It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law enforcement can obtain crucial digital information to protect national security and public safety, either with cooperation from relevant parties, or through the court system when cooperation fails," Newman said. "We will continue to pursue all available options for this mission, including seeking the cooperation of manufacturers and relying upon the creativity of both the public and private sectors."
0 comments:
Post a Comment