Homeless in Arizona

Source

Apple's CEO Tim Cook says firm will oppose iPhone court order

Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY 7:05 a.m. EST February 17, 2016

A federal judge has ordered Apple to help the FBI break into an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters. Wochit

Apple CEO Tim Cook said late Tuesday that the company would oppose a federal judge's ruling ordering the technology giant to help investigators break into an iPhone belonging to San Bernardino, Calif., shooter Syed Rizwan Farook.

"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them," Cook wrote in a letter published on the Cupertino, Calif.-headquartered firm's website.

"But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone," he said.

Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in December in a mass shooting at a county public health facility. The pair subsequently died in a gun battle with police. An iPhone was recovered from the scene but because investigators don't know the passcode they have been unable to access the phone's data.

A court now wants Apple to help the FBI gain that access by giving it "reasonable technical assistance." Cook said Apple would resist that order.

"Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession," he said.

"We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them," he said.

The development comes amid a debate over privacy laws. Some legislators and security agencies assert that investigations are substantially hindered in the face of encrypted electronic devices that may contain crucial data about, for example, terrorist attacks or information that could serve the interests of extremists.

Technology companies on the other hand have expressed concerns about being seen to too closely abide by the wishes of governments, a situation highlighted by the spying leaks made by former National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden.

"Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government," Cook added.

"We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications," Cook said.

Source

Apple opposes order to help FBI unlock phone belonging to San Bernardino shooter

Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook

James Queally and Brian BennettContact Reporters

Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook says his company will resist a federal judge's order to access encrypted data hidden on a cellphone that belonged to the terrorist couple who killed 14 people in San Bernardino last year.

In a statement released early Wednesday, Cook said that such a move would undermine encryption by creating a backdoor that could potentially be used on other future devices.

"In the wrong hands, this software -- which does not exist today -- would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession," the statement said.

The judge's order is aimed at removing what had become a barrier in the investigation of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

Authorities are trying to determine the couple's movements between the time of the attack at the Inland Regional Center the morning of Dec. 2 and their deaths in a wild firefight with police hours later. Last month, the FBI asked for the public's help in filling in an 18-minute gap in the narrative of the couple’s whereabouts.

The FBI is also probing whether the couple received any help in plotting or carrying out the attacks.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym in Riverside directed Apple on Tuesday to help the FBI get around the phone’s passcode protection and any auto-erase functions the device might employ.

“The government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone's encrypted content,” U.S. Atty. Eileen Decker wrote in a 40-page motion to the judge. “Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily.”

The device, an iPhone5, was given to Syed Rizwan Farook by the San Bernardino County Health Department and was used in his job as an inspector, according to the motion.

It is the tech giant’s policy to require law enforcement to obtain search warrants or subpoenas before aiding in investigations.

But the company sees the order as an "overreach by the U.S. government," according to the statement.

The health department gave the FBI consent to search the phone, according to the motion, but authorities have been unable to bypass the phone's passcode lock for fear its operating system would destroy all data on the phone after 10 failed attempts.

In its motion, the FBI said Apple should be able to turn off the device’s auto-erase functions, allowing the government to submit “test passcodes” to the phone without the risk of destroying the data it seeks. The motion said that Apple routinely complies with law enforcement when presented with a search warrant or judicial order.

The phone stopped sending backup information to the iCloud server on Oct. 19, 2015, according to the government’s motion, and the FBI believes that Farook may have disabled that function in order to hide evidence. Any communications or data linked to the shooting after Oct. 19 would be accessible only through the device, according to the motion.

Farook also used the phone to talk with Malik after that date, court records show.

Investigators are hoping the data on the phone will help answer several questions that have persisted since the shooting. It remains unclear why Farook left a bag with several pipe bombs in the conference room where he and his wife opened fire, why the bombs were not detonated, of if the couple were plotting other attacks.

Enrique Marquez Jr., a friend of Farook’s, is accused of buying two rifles used in the shootings. Marquez has been arrested and charged with providing material support for terrorists and other crimes. He has pleaded not guilty.

Location data on the phone, among other pieces of information, could also help investigators answer questions about the couple’s movements during an 18-minute gap in the FBI’s timeline of their actions following the shooting.

FBI Director James B. Comey first revealed the agency's struggles to access the phone data while speaking before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week.

Several cellphone models, including Apple's iPhone 6 and Samsung's Galaxy S6, use advanced encryption algorithms that scramble all the data on the device when a pin code is set.

Encrypted cellphones and text-messaging apps have made it harder for investigators and intelligence services to track suspected plots in real time, or trace locations and connections once they acquire a suspect's device, Comey said.

Apple changed the way it manages phone encryption in September 2014, a move that makes it more difficult for law enforcement to access encrypted data on cellphones, according to Clifford Neuman, director of USC’s Center for Computer System Security. Previously, forensic investigators could tap into a device’s hardware port and gain access to a phone’s data “independent of needing to try passcodes,” he said.

“That path into the device is no longer possible,” Neuman said.

The change in the encryption method means Apple may not be able to decrypt the data, according to Neuman. The company could, however, bypass the access code system that would cause the data to be erased, and then grant the FBI access to the encrypted data. Federal investigators would then have to decrypt the data themselves, Neuman said.

The tech industry and the government have long been at odds over how much access law enforcement and national security agencies should be given to private phone data. Recently, Comey, Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch and other national security leaders met with representatives from Google, Apple and Facebook in San Jose to try and find common ground that would help investigators gain crucial information about possible terror plots without compromising the privacy of the companies’ customers.

Here is Cook's full statement on the San Bernardino matter:

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

The Need for Encryption

Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Staff writers Joel Rubin, Andrea Chang and Richard Winton contributed to this report.

If you ask me this is 100% bullsh*t!!!! Why should Apple be forced to help the government break into people's phones.

Last time I checked the 13th Amendment made slavery illegal.

Source

Apple ordered to break into San Bernardino shooter's iPhone

Kevin Johnson and Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY 7:03 a.m. EST February 17, 2016

A federal judge has ordered Apple to help the FBI break into an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters. Wochit

WASHINGTON — Apple must help the FBI break into an iPhone belonging to one of the killers in the San Bernardino, Calif., shootings, a federal judge ordered Tuesday.

Tashfeen Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, shot and killed 14 people in December. The couple later died in a gun battle with police. The iPhone was recovered from their vehicle in the aftermath of the attack.

The ruling from U.S. Magistrate Sheri Pym requires Apple to provide "reasonable technical assistance" to the FBI, namely, software that can disable the security feature that erases data from the iPhone after too many unsuccessful attempts to unlock it.

Federal prosecutors told the court they could not access the phone used by Farook because they don’t know his passcode. With the security feature disabled, they can attempt as many combinations necessary to unlock the iPhone.

The iPhone in this case was not the property of Farook, but of his employer, San Bernardino County, which consented to the search.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said late Tuesday that the company would oppose the ruling.

In a message to customers published on Apple's website, he said: "We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data."

FBI director James Comey could not be immediately reached for comment.

Last week, Comey told a Senate panel that investigators still have not been able to unlock the encrypted cellphone of one of the terrorists who carried out the attack, which also left 20 others wounded.

"We still have one of those killer's phones that we haven't been able to open," Comey told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing on threats to the homeland. "It's been over two months now. We are still working on it."

Comey made the comments in response to questions from senators about how encrypted cellphones and other electronic devices can hinder investigations because they cannot be unlocked, even by the companies that made them.

Comey could not be immediately reached for comment.

The encryption debate, which often pits security hawks against privacy advocates, has intensified in the wake of the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., is working with Vice Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on legislation that would compel tech companies to provide encrypted data to law enforcement agencies.

Following Tuesday’s ruling, Los Angeles U.S. Attorney Eileen Decker said the move to unlock the phone represented an attempt to “exhaust every investigative lead in the case.’’

"We have made a solemn commitment to the victims and their families that we will leave no stone unturned as we gather as much information and evidence as possible,’’ Decker said. "These victims and families deserve nothing less. The application filed today in federal court is another step — a potentially important step — in the process of learning everything we possibly can about the attack in San Bernardino.”

The Obama administration has held high-level discussions with Silicon Valley companies to press Apple, Facebook and others to do more to prevent terrorists from using the Internet to spread propaganda, incite violence and attract new recruits. Companies, sensitive to the fallout from government spying revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, have been wary of being seen as aiding the government to spy on users.

A major point of contention: law enforcement's concerns that tech companies provide encrypted communications that terrorists can use to hide their activities.

Apple has five business days to respond to the order.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is considering filing an amicus brief in support of Apple and expects other digital rights groups to do the same, said Kurt Opsahl, general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"If the U.S. government can force Apple to do this, why can¹t the Chinese or Russian governments? Other countries will ask for this same power. Do we want to have this be universal?" Opsahl said.

The risk? If Apple creates a program to break into this iPhone, it will essentially be a "master key" for other iPhones, he warned.

"It would be possible for the government to take this key, modify it and use it on other phones," Opsahl said. "That risks a lot, that the government will have this power and it will not be misused."