Apple Versus the G-Men

Feb 24, 2016 H. T. Goranson

Apple’s refusal to unlock the iPhone linked to the massacre of 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December has triggered a public battle with the US Justice Department and the FBI – a dispute with far-reaching implications for data privacy worldwide. But the case is not as straightforward as it seems.

VIRGINIA BEACH – Apple’s refusal to unlock the iPhone linked to the extremist attack in San Bernardino, California, in December has triggered a public battle with the US Justice Department and the FBI – a dispute with far-reaching implications for data privacy worldwide. But the case is not as straightforward as it seems.

Speaking as someone with a long presence in the US intelligence community, I believe that the FBI has already gained access to Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone. It is an older Apple model using technology that, in other contexts, has already been compromised.

Here’s another strange thing about the FBI’s demand of Apple: Why would the United States government stoop to a public debate on this issue? The FBI is the country’s most powerful law-enforcement organization, and Apple will ultimately be forced to comply with its request. (Full disclosure: I own Apple stock.)

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 in all 15 Comments on this article

Peter Tremulis Mar 13, 2016

Privacy is a privilege that evaporates once acts against humanity occur. Apple should be held in contempt and should be prosecuted for designing systems to flout due process in criminal cases. These should not be offered to the general public. Fine for government communication systems under national security premise, but the market for profit a system that usurps laws designed to protect the general public should be patently illegal themselves.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernd Einfeldt Feb 29, 2016

"The concept of privacy, the prime minister said, was antiquated – or at least different than it used to be. “The networks are exposed. The fact that we have networks, increasing complexity of networks, interconnectivity on networks means that anything and everything can be exposed. The Internet of everything means that everything can be violated,” said Netanyahu. “The whole idea of intellectual property – that is being fundamentally challenged. The privacy of individuals – fundamentally challenged. The sanctity of our bank accounts – fundamentally challenged. And this goes obviously into public systems: power grids, traffic nets, water systems – you name it. Everything can be violated. Everything can be opened up. Everything can be also sabotaged.” ( http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-israel-is-leading-wests-cyber-security-fight/)

Today governments (and the military) are concerned about the exposure of classified information to the public. Publishing companies are concerned about the violation of there copyrights in the new digital world. But what about the private intellectual property - private notes are no longer written on a piece of paper, as it used to be for several hundred years. They are typed into an Smartphone or iPhone. What are the consequences of an backdoor access to this information by an governmental organization? This question is discussed in the project-syndicate article ( https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/apple-versus-the-fbi-by-h-t-goranson-2016-02#5il8gkIJz3XqoBx8.99 ) by H.T. Goranson:

From the article: "Each of the new chips has a unique signature used for encryption, which is coupled with its user’s fingerprint. "

... thus today we can securely write messages and notes on an iPhone, respectively an iPAD? However, as mentioned in the article, the FBI could force Apple to design a back door into the chip. In this case the unique identifier makes it quite easy for an government to find any person who wrote a particular keyword - whatever this implies for this person. Thus the iPhone can become a threat for its user in an autocratic system, if it the autocratic government has access to a backdoor.
I personally think that the functionality of a security chip should be part of a democratic audit. If the FBI has actually the power to force a company like Apple to integrate a backdoor, than the U.S. is moving away from democratic principles and it must be asked, if there must be a security chip for the european or asian market, reflecting the privacy rights in each region?
I personally think that the iPhone security (without a backdoor) is a great improvement. Well, we all have valid passports (except spy's, terrorists and criminals) and this is a big step forwards to make the digital world more real. However, the missing transparent audit process for mobile phone security is worrying.

From the article: "Backdoors have been acknowledged as dangerous by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, who says that “encryption is foundational to the future.” When access to private communications is possible, anyone can use it for any purpose.

This complicates the FBI’s argument about public safety. For example, do we really want a terrorist group to be capable of accessing a president’s or prime minister’s private information? If a phone has a backdoor, it can be opened by anyone with enough motivation – criminals, extremists, and governments alike."

l
...........

"Today’s most powerful technologies relate to information concerning our thoughts, associations, and bodies. If the framers of the US Constitution were alive today and as well educated as they were then, the Bill of Rights would likely be focused on balancing access to information to ensure that the government remains within bounds."

The last paragraph applies in a figurative sense also to Europe, where some governments today develop official spyware, instead of official security. Mobile phones are obviously not regarded as systematic relevant (in contrast to financial institutions) for the future of Europe. But how can Europe create a single digital market, without secure digital devices, which obey the european law. Lets face, if smartphones, iPhones, server, storage system, communication devices, search engines, etc. are designed with or without backdoors, this is not in the hand of Brussel. There are no digital companies left in Europe, which could provide the technical infrastructure for a digital market.

P.S. Further does it say in the above Times of Israel article: "Among the visitors are over 450 heads of industry and cyber-security agencies from around the world, said Efrati. Among the larger delegations was the U.S. delegation, including 50 people from the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, and delegations from South Korea, Mexico, NASA. Representatives of the armies of Brazil, Mexico, Italy and the Netherlands, IT companies from Colombia, Ghana, and Nigeria, and a cyber-security team from Canada were also in attendance."

... from Mexico, Columbia, Ghana and Nigeria
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Murray Duffin Feb 29, 2016

This is a very misleading commentary. The White House has clearly stated that the request is just for this phone. While the password, including Apples addition can clearly be hacked, but not in a way that accesses data on the phone. The SW on the phone requires several seconds between attempts to enter the correct password, and allows onlv 10 attempts before all data is erased. The FBI wants these 2 features to be disabled, and wants to be able to enter password attempts electronically instead of by keystrokes. That is all they have asked for. They will then take care of running however many attempts is needed to hack the password using well developed techniques readily available on the Internet. No greater scheme like a universal back door has been requested. They have not asked for a general tool to disable these barriers, but will allow Apple to do the job and keep the method/tools to themselves. Apple's CEO's assertion that this is the first step on the slippery slope to a back door is really stretching the longbow.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Goldstone Feb 28, 2016

There are a couple of weird things going on here (at least a couple):

1. If it is simply about Farook's phone, it would be pretty simple as a law enforcement issue to ask Apple through a court order to use its best efforts to recover the content and provide it to the FBI without any need to disclose how they had reconstructed the content. I don't think any citizen could argue against a reasonable request to help solve a particular crime where there is a self-evident prime suspect.

2. The second thing is too complicated to summarise succinctly but it involves the NSA's legal restraint from surveilling US citizens and I guess thus the need to push the FBI to be the front-runner in pressuring phone-makers (and of course network and OTT operators) for accessibility....which will give the NSA what they need.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Feb 26, 2016

Encryption is something that protects the non-powerful from the powerful, just as allowing hand guns does. If you think the the powerful only have good intention watch this TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/will_potter_the_secret_us_prisons_you_ve_never_heard_of_before
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Feb 26, 2016

Almost everything that Apple stands for comes before the interest of any other constituency, including that of the customer or the government if it threatens to question the business model it is pursuing; in this case it is an even bigger stake involved when a multi-billion dollar cyber-security market is up for grabs.

This back-door for one phone is good enough to influence hackers to co-create a solution that could well be better than the original.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Kinder Feb 26, 2016

If the FBI would obtain a search warrant on the phone, Apple would open the phone. Apple opposes any backdoor to it's technology. I thought warrantless searches were illegal and violated the constitution. Apparently, the NSA has FAR MORE power than ANY government agency should have.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Griffith Feb 25, 2016

H>T. one of the more thoughtful pieces I have read on the subject. We have written that the risk here should not be underestimated; if the Department of Justice prevails and manages to force Apple to create a backdoor and thereby fatally weaken the security of iPhone encryption, the ramifications will dog us for years to come. If backdoors are mandated in products such as the iPhone, what we’ll be doing is making it much, much easier for hackers to compromise our identities, our finances, and our privacy all for the fiction of making us safer by making life easier for law enforcement. We will reference your material when we do another update on the subject. Thanks!
https://articles.azstec.com/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stefan S Feb 25, 2016

I think Apple should stand its ground.

If Apple is capable of unlocking this phone, then that means that someone is capable. The FBI and the judge in this case simply need to hire someone capable to unlock the phone. By what law do they have the right to compel Apple?
- Stefan S Feb 25, 2016
  
  And on the other hand, I also believe Apple should stop waiting of a corporate tax holiday, repatriate its overseas profits, and pay its fair share of American taxes.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 24, 2016

Apple will lose this one simply because their position is not attracting majority US public support. Their position then is to make sure everybody knows they were forced to open the door. 'Its not us guv'
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Feb 24, 2016

I don't quite the parallel made with gun ownership...Honestly it makes no sense at all.

IMHO this is a question of privacy, and rights has individuals. Is it legal to submit us all to a lie detector to see if we are terrorists?

Off course not, the use of lie detectors is restricted by law, forbidden in many countries, and that's the way it should be.

Technology exists that makes it possible for backdoor keys, the way our society uses them isn't for the builders of homes to determine.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Feb 24, 2016

Apple's playing a losing hand. The FBI is playing nice. China and several other nations will not. If Apple wants access to China in the long term it will surrender if it hasn't already. It likely has if you believe China's government will tolerate phones it can't read I have a bridge to sell you.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kudakwashe Kanhutu Feb 24, 2016

Apple's case, so presented, is stronger than the FBI's case. I am usually of the inclination that the State should have access to information that it needs to keep the population safe, but in this case, let the State get its information through other means.
- Sikiru Salami Feb 25, 2016
  
  My exact thought there! It is tough dealing with issue of public safety and individual privacy. But in the end, gov't wins.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/WfLA3fc

Cookies and Privacy

Apple Versus the G-Men

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Apple Versus the G-Men

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification