In a new editorial by FBI Director James Comey -- long an advocate of completely removing encryption from smartphones entirely, seeing it as a hindrance to law enforcement -- the official again makes the dubious claim that the FBI's demand of Apple to develop software that can defeat the built-in security of the iPhone and allow for rapid brute-force unlocking attempts is of a "limited" scope that applies to this particular case only, while still not providing any explanation of what the agency expects to find if its wish is granted. While some families are rallying to the FBI's case, at least one family -- and a former director of both the CIA and NSA -- are refuting Comey's claims.
Comey, in an article for trade publication
Lawfare,
repeats his claim that its request is limited to the single, work-issued iPhone 5c issued to one of the San Bernardino gunmen, Syed Farook, who was an employee of the county health department he and his wife attacked in early December. While Farook expressed support for organizations like the Islamic State, the attack -- despite repeated FBI characterizations of "terrorism" -- appears to be a more conventional workplace massacre by a disgruntled employee who appears to have been a "Muslim supremacist" in the same sense as race-based hate groups.
Currently, Apple's security software embedded in the iPhone's operating system prevents brute-force passcode attempts in two methods: it limits the amount of time between attempts slightly, preventing automated rapid-fire attempts; and it will automatically erase the iPhone after a certain number of unsuccessful attempts if the user has set it up to do so. Apple has said that in order to do so, it would have to create a "master key" type of software that could work on any iPhone, and that this would lead to all kinds of unintended consequences, from FBI abuse of the tool in more trivial cases to other countries demanding the same access.
"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," Comey wrote. "That's it. We don't want to break anyone's encryption or set a master key loose on the land," though he again did not take the opportunity to explain what the FBI thinks it will find on the work iPhone, which had not been previously backed up since well before the attacks (and the FBI already has those contents), or why it believes the work-issued iPhone -- which, unlike Farook's personal phone, was not destroyed by the gunman to prevent recovery -- has any content that would be of interest.
The FBI has already and repeatedly said Farook and his wife had no actual ties to terrorist groups, and acted alone without co-conspirators or sympathizers. Apple CEO Tim Cook, following an initial letter laying out why the company does not believe Comey's claims and thus will challenge the judge's order, has
further clarified that it would be "glad to participate" in a government panel that would more seriously examine the full implications of proposals regarding privacy, technology, and civil liberties as enshrined in the US Constitution. Unmentioned in the Comey editorial is the fact that an attempt to force the iPhone to create a new iCloud backup -- which would have provided the FBI with the information it seeks --
was bungled by San Bernardino officials themselves, working under orders from the FBI, to reset the iCloud password of the gunman.
In the meantime, the families of the victims are somewhat divided on the larger issues raised by the case. Understandably, a number of victims' families are
preparing to file a brief with the court in support of the FBI, referring to the gunman's targets as victims of "terrorism" and thus wanting to see Farook's work iPhone 5c unlocked and analyzed -- believing the FBI's nebulous claims that there could possibly be some information of relevance there. US-born Farook himself had not identified with any group, but his wife and co-conspirator Tashfeen Malik expressed loyalty to Islamic State in social media postings prior to the attack. IS later took credit for the shooting, though the FBI has said there is no link other than Malik's sympathy for the goals of the group.
At least one victim's family, however,
takes Apple's side of the dispute. The iPhone maker "is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans," said Carole Adams, whose son Robert was among the 14 killed by Farook and Malik. "This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote. This is what separates us from communism, isn't it -- the fact that we have a right to privacy."
Former CIA and NSA chief, General Michael Hayden,
also threw his support in with Apple, though he said he "trends towards the government" in most cases. He specifically called out Comey's comments, saying "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."
"When you step back and look at the whole question of American security and safety writ large, we are a safer, more secure nation without back doors," he added. If the FBI won out in this case, Hayden said, "other people would take advantage of it." He acknowledged, however, that "this is not a struggle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness; [these are] good people, trying to find the right balance" between security and privacy.
Top