Encryption

FBI director James Comey – who had previously claimed that “the San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent” – has now admitted that it would. The Guardian reports that Comey made the admission when testifying under oath yesterday to a Congress committee.

The ultimate outcome of the Apple-FBI showdown is likely to “guide how other courts handle similar requests”, James Comey told a congressional intelligence panel on Thursday, a softening of his flat insistence on Sunday that the FBI was not attempting to “set a precedent”.

Asked if it was true that police departments around the country also wanted to gain access to locked iPhones, he agreed that it was …

Expand
Expanding
Close

Following Apple’s filling earlier today in which it formally responded to the FBI’s court request to access date on a locked iPhone, the Wall Street Journal now reports that Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter all plan to file court motions supporting Apple’s stance.

Expand
Expanding
Close

There’s a new development in the ongoing back-and-forth between Apple and the Department of Justice. Apple’s top lawyer, Bruce Sewell, will testify on encryption next week before a congressional hearing. The upcoming hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 1st, just five days from today.

Expand
Expanding
Close

It looks like Apple’s plans to strengthen iPhone security to make it impossible for the company to comply with future demands to hack into them will require new hardware. But you can already make it effectively impossible to gain access to your iPhone, even if Apple was forced to bypass passcode time-outs. All that is needed are two simple changes.

First, if you currently use a 6-digit passcode, change it to a longer one. If Apple removes the timeouts, and that compromised firmware gets into the wrong hands, it will take an average of just 11 hours to brute-force a 6-digit code. Simply doubling the number of digits to 12 means that the average time needed increases exponentially to 1,268 years.

If that isn’t enough for you, changing it to a complex alphanumeric one literally pushes the brute-force attack time into the millions of years. There is, however, one other weakness you need to address …

Expand
Expanding
Close

In a conference call with reporters last week, an Apple exec said it was reasonable to expect the company to continue strengthening the security policies of its products in light of the Apple/FBI battle.

In complementary reports today, The New York Times and Financial Times are detailing that Apple engineers are now actively developing new encryption methods for iCloud backups and iPhone hardware, so that Apple couldn’t even hack itself … if it was asked to again like in San Bernardino iPhone backdoor/unlock case.

Not only would this counter the orders by the FBI in the current court case for future iPhone owners, it would also close a security hole in iCloud backups that various law enforcement institutions have exploited thousands of times before …

Expand
Expanding
Close

Apple CEO Tim Cook has today sat down with ABC’s David Muir to talk about the company’s battle with the FBI. Last week, a California court requested that Apple unlock an iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino gunmen in December. Cook replied to the request with a letter on Apple’s homepage, saying that Apple did not want to create the tool that would be required to unlock the device. In his interview with Muir, Cook elaborated on the company’s decision…

Expand
Expanding
Close

Apple said yesterday that its legal battle with the FBI has such far-reaching consequences that it should be settled by Congress rather than by the courts – but if that tack is unsuccessful, Bloomberg reports that the company will be putting forward a rather unusual argument in court. Apple will argue that the digital signature it uses to validate code is protected by the First Amendment as free speech, which cannot be compelled in law.

Before you download a new game or messaging app on your iPhone, the device checks for a digital signature tucked within the lines of code on the app. All applications sold through the App Store are approved by Apple and have this cryptographic autograph from the company telling your iPhone it’s safe. In the FBI case, some privacy advocates believe the company has a strong First Amendment case because it’s being asked to add that signature, against its will, to software that would aid the government.

In other words, even if the government could force Apple to write code that would remove the passcode protections, it shouldn’t be allowed to force Apple to sign the code – and if Apple doesn’t sign it, the iPhone won’t accept it …

Expand
Expanding
Close

According to a report from the Associated Press, Apple plans to file legal papers in which it will argue that its fight with the FBI of decrypting an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino gunmen should be settled by Congress. This report follows Apple CEO Tim Cook’s letter to employees in which he stated that the government should withdraw its demands because they are invalid under the All Writs Act from 1789.

Expand
Expanding
Close

Update: Bill Gates has told Bloomberg that he was “disappointed” by the ways his views were presented, and he does not back the FBI’s side of this particular case, and that the matter should be decided by the courts.

Apple is locked in a battle with the FBI over whether or not it should create a tool to access data on a locked iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino gunmen, but as some have expected, that’s only one of many cases in which Apple is involved. The Wall Street Journal reports this evening that the Department of Justice is seeking data from at least 12 other iPhones in criminal cases.

Expand
Expanding
Close

Following Tim Cook sending a letter to all Apple employees earlier today regarding the issue, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has today expressed his support for Apple in its ongoing battle with the FBI. Speaking at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, the Facebook CEO stated that he doesn’t believe that building back doors is the way to handle situations like the one being debated (via NY Times).

Expand
Expanding
Close

Retired General Michael Hayden, former head of both the NSA and CIA, told USA Today that while he “trends toward the government” on the ‘master key‘ approach to the San Bernardino case, he thinks Apple is right that there should never be a back door to encryption. His remarks were made as Tim Cook called for the government to drop its demands that Apple help the FBI break into an iPhone.

Hayden went so far as to specifically call out FBI Director Jim Comey in his comments.

In this specific case, I’m trending toward the government, but I’ve got to tell you in general I oppose the government’s effort, personified by FBI Director Jim Comey. Jim would like a back door available to American law enforcement in all devices globally. And, frankly, I think on balance that actually harms American safety and security, even though it might make Jim’s job a bit easier in some specific circumstances.

Comey has repeatedly attacked Apple’s use of strong encryption on iPhones …

Expand
Expanding
Close

Victims and families of victims in the San Bernardino shootings have expressed divided views on the Apple vs FBI battle over access to an iPhone used by one of the terrorists.

We noted earlier that the mother of one of those killed in the attack has expressed support for Apple’s position, stating that the constitutional right to privacy “is what makes America great.”

This is what separates us from communism, isn’t it? The fact we have the right to privacy. I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans.

However, Reuters reports that some victims of the attack plan to file a legal brief in support of the FBI …

Expand
Expanding
Close

In case you missed Apple’s fight with the FBI this week, the launch of Apple in China, or any of the other big Apple stories we’ve covered, below we’ve rounded up this week’s top stories and recommended reading to get you up to date over the weekend. Enjoy. 
Expand
Expanding
Close

If Tim Cook’s strongly-worded response to the court order instructing it to assist the FBI in breaking into an iPhone left any room for doubt about Apple’s determination to fight the matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, that doubt appears to be removed by further background emerging today.

The NY Times reports that Apple plans to press ahead with plans to increase its use of strong encryption.

Mr. Cook has told colleagues that he still stands by the company’s longstanding plans to encrypt everything stored on Apple’s myriad devices, services and in the cloud, where the bulk of data is still stored unencrypted.

“If you place any value on civil liberties, you don’t do what law enforcement is asking,” Mr. Cook has said.

The piece also reveals that Apple had asked the FBI to make its court application under seal – meaning that the legal arguments could be heard in private – but the FBI chose instead to make it a public fight …

Expand
Expanding
Close

Following Apple’s refusal to unlock an iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino gunmen, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a Republican out of North Carolina, plans to propose a new bill that would impose criminal penalties on companies that don’t comply with those types of orders. Citing people familiar with the matter, the report says that Burr’s plan isn’t finalized yet and that it’s unclear how many other lawmakers support the idea.

Expand
Expanding
Close

Discussing the FBI case with a friend yesterday, one distinction that seems worth addressing is the difference between a backdoor into iPhones – which is what law enforcement agencies have so far been calling for – and what we might term a master key, which is what the FBI is calling for in this particular case.

Law enforcement agencies have so far been calling for Apple to abandon its use of strong encryption. Technically, they want Apple to build in a backdoor route into that encryption for use by law enforcement agencies, but that’s the same thing: strong encryption with a built-in flaw is not strong encryption. It’s only a matter of time before hackers find and exploit it.

What the FBI is asking in the San Bernardino case is quite different. Instead of asking Apple to weaken the encryption, they want it to weaken the lock guarding access to the phone by removing the auto-wipe and time-delay functions. That would leave the phone vulnerable to a brute-force attack.

And, the FBI assures us, it isn’t asking Apple to do this for all iPhones, just this one specific device. It’s a very different scenario, and one that sounds superficially harmless …

Expand
Expanding
Close

Civil rights organizations have expressed strong support for Apple’s resistance to a court order instructing it to create special firmware that would allow the FBI to break into an iPhone – with tech companies doing the same, albeit in a weaker fashion.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posted a statement in which it said that it applauded Apple for standing up for the rights of its customers, and would be making its views known to the court.

Essentially, the government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone. And once that master key is created, we’re certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security […]

EFF applauds Apple for standing up for real security and the rights of its customers. We have been fighting to protect encryption, and stop backdoors, for over 20 years. That’s why EFF plans to file an amicus brief in support of Apple’s position.

The Verge notes similar support from both the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Amnesty International …

Expand
Expanding
Close

News broke yesterday that a United States magistrate judge in California ordered Apple to comply with the FBI’s request for assistance in bypassing the passcode lock of the San Bernardino gunman’s iPhone. Hours later Apple published an open letter by Tim Cook explaining that creating a tool to bypass this specific iPhone would jeopardize the security of all iPhones.

The battle between personal privacy and information gathering as it relates to Apple and security has been building up for years now, and the government narrowing it down to one specific iPhone used by a terrorist in the U.S. has caused the debate to reach new levels. This may be Apple’s battle to lose, but it will be a very public one nonetheless.

Since Apple’s response to the FBI and court order, the White House has stood by the Department of Justice and argued that it’s not about a backdoor for all devices but just a single device, which Tim Cook’s argument already addressed.

Tim Cook’s open letter is on Apple’s homepage and headlines about the government’s demands are all over the news. From my view, Apple customers seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of Tim Cook’s position, while presidential candidates are unsurprisingly siding with the FBI. Where do you weigh in? Here’s what we know so far.

Expand
Expanding
Close

I laid out the three reasons I believe Apple is right to stand firm on encryption back in November. The tl;dr version was in the summary.

So weakening encryption would mean sacrificing core principles of civilized societies in the name of security. It would provide not just our own government but foreign governments and criminals with access to our data. And it would do absolutely nothing to prevent terrorists from communicating in secret.

Gratifyingly, 93% of you agreed with me. But much as you and I both think Apple is right, the company now appears to be in an extremely tricky position. Not only does it have a court order instructing it to assist the FBI in breaking into one specific phone, but it appears very likely that it has the technical ability to comply with this order.

Tim Cook currently remains defiant, but how likely is it that Apple could succeed in fighting the order … ?

Expand
Expanding
Close