FBI breaks iPhone encryption, sets off debate

Closes case against Apple, opens more questions

March 29, 2016 09:02 am | Updated December 04, 2021 11:03 pm IST - Washington

This July 27, 2014, photo provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows Tashfeen Malik, left, and Syed Farook, as they passed through O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. Photo: AP

This July 27, 2014, photo provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows Tashfeen Malik, left, and Syed Farook, as they passed through O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. Photo: AP

The U.S security agencies breached the encryption of an iPhone used by a terrorist involved in the December 2, 2015 San Bernardino shooting, bringing a legal tussle between the government and the technology giant Apple to a close but prompting more questions related to privacy, surveillance and security.

The U.S. government and Apple were in a court battle after the company challenged a judicial order to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to access the data stored in an iPhone 5 C used by Syed Farook, who, with his wife Tashfeen Malik shot 14 people dead. Both were killed in the police operation that followed.

Apple CEO Tim Cook had termed the February court order “dangerous,” and the government demand “chilling,” and had vowed to fight it as it threatened the “security of our customers.”

The U.S Department of Justice told a California court on Monday that it “no longer required the assistance from Apple Inc.” as the FBI could access the phone with assistance from a third party. Unconfirmed reports claimed that an Israeli private firm helped the FBI hack the iPhone. “There are several suspects. It could be the National Security Agency; it could be a private contractor hired by the FBI. We know that there are individuals and organisations that are capable of doing this,” James Andrew Lewis, Director and Senior Fellow, Strategic Technologies Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C, told The Hindu.

A Justice Department spokesperson said the government would continue to “rely upon the creativity of both the public and private sectors,” and seek the cooperation of manufacturers in such cases.

The larger debate

Mr. Cook had said the government move would not be restricted to one phone, and companies would be forced to make digital master keys that would be used for mass surveillance by security agencies. FBI Director James Comey countered Mr Cook in a blog post on February 21:

“The particular legal issue is actually quite narrow. The relief we seek is limited and its value increasingly obsolete because the technology continues to evolve. We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That’s it. We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land.” “This case should never have been brought,” Apple said in a statement on Monday. “We will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along, and we will continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data become more frequent and more sophisticated. ... This case raised issues which deserve a national conversation about our civil liberties, and our collective security and privacy.”

“Apple took a risk by refusing to cooperate with the FBI. It reassured it global customers, but in the end it seems to have backfired a bit, because it turns out that its encryption is not as unbreakable as thought. Apple will now strive hard to make its encryption even stronger,” Mr Lewis told The Hindu.

But the larger questions regarding an individual’s right to privacy and the requirements of law enforcement will continue. “Should an individual consumer have absolute protection of his mobile device? The immediate answer is yes, but then you realise that you have among these consumers, child traffickers, drug dealers and terrorists. So, this debate has no immediate conclusion,” Mr Lewis said.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.