Saturday, 20 February 2016
Apple comments on iPhone ID change prevented data access
 | ||
| An iPhone sits on display inside the Apple store | on Fifth Avenue |
iPhone the FBI wants Apple to hack for
information about one of the San Bernardino,
Calif., terrorists was changed less than a day
after the government gained possession of it,
Apple executives said in a phone briefing with
reporters Friday afternoon.
Had the passcode not been changed, Apple said,
a backup of the information the government is
seeking could have been viewed. It is unclear
who changed the Apple ID passcode while it
was in the government’s possession, the
executive said.
The call with the reporters marked the latest
twist in a now-public dispute between the U.S.
government and the world's most valuable
company over whether Apple should be forced to
break into a phone used by one of the killers in
the San Bernardino, Calif. shootings that left
14 dead in December.
The government, via a federal
magistrate, ordered Apple to write software that
would allow it to disable a security feature
on the phone.
On Friday, the Justice Department swung back,
filing a motion seeking to force Apple to comply
with the court order and saying Apple's refusal
was "based on concern for its business model
and public brand marketing strategy."
DOJ concurs: password was rest
In the government’s Friday filing, the Justice
Department acknowledged that the password
was re-set in the hours after the attack by
authorities with San Bernardino County. The
county owned the phone and provided it to Syed
Farook, one of the attackers.
The county action, the government contends,
had the effect of eliminating the possibility of a
back-up of the device’s contents. The
documents also reflect that the government
discussed this dilemma with Apple
representatives.
Apple had been in regular talks with the
government since early January, Apple
executives said in an earlier call covered by
other news outlets. It proposed four ways to
recover the information, including connecting
the phone to a known Wi-Fi network.
Apple sent engineers to try that method, but
was unsuccessful, Apple said. That was when it
was discovered the Apple ID passcode of shooter
Syed Rizwan Farook's iPhone 5c had been
changed under government custody.
If the FBI is successful in its request, it will
open a floodgate of requests from prosecutors
nationwide, the executive said, and district
attorneys have lined up with hundreds of
requests to unlock iPhones to solve criminal
cases, the executive said.
The executive said no such request has been
made from China or any other country outside
the U.S.
The U.S. government has refuted Apple's
assertion — an argument echoed by other tech
companies including Google and Yahoo — that
creating software to unlock the San Bernardino
shooter's iPhone would lead to wave of
government requests in other criminal cases
and make consumer devices more vulnerable
to hackers.
In court documents Friday, lawyers for the
Department of Justice said the order "does not
provide hackers and criminals access to
iPhones."
"It does not require Apple to hack its own users
or de-crypt its own phones; it does not give the
government the power to reach into anyone's
device without a warrant or court
authorization,'' Justice Department lawyers said.
Multiple court cases
Apple has filed documents in New York that
show it faces multiple court cases in which law
enforcement investigators have sought Apple's
aid in accessing the iPhone data of criminal
suspects.
Data gathered by Manhattan District Attorney
Cyrus Vance Jr. in New York City
illustrate the legal stakes facing Apple and U.S.
law enforcement: Investigators were unable
to execute search warrants for suspects'
smartphones in approximately 155 cases to
date because the devices run on Apple's iOS8
operating system, Vance told USA TODAY.
With that operating system and higher, Apple
applied encryption that it would be unable to
circumvent; only the user with his or her
password could access data on the device.
Media press
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
No comments :
Post a Comment