The FBI brought its bitter six week-long dispute with the tech giant to
a close on Monday after managing to breach the encryption on the mobile
phone of Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino attackers, with the help of an unnamed third party.
With the agency having thus far declined to tell Apple
how it managed to circumvent the phone’s security features, the company
is in the dark as to whether a gap exists that may be exploited by
hackers.
After weeks of defying a court order to build a backdoor “master key” that would allow the FBI to mine the data on Farook’s iPhone 5c, it is now Apple that is searching for information.
The company is pursuing legal steps that would compel the government to
disclose details of how it managed the breach, and whether it was
specific to the phone in question or could be replicated on other
devices.
That could set the stage for
another high-profile showdown between America’s government and one of
its most valuable companies.
Customs
and Border Protection shows Tashfeen Malik (left) and Syed Farook, as
they passed through O'Hare International Airport in Chicago Photo: AP
Apple has not publicly confirmed that it will try and force the FBI’s hand, but has said it is continuing to work to improve the iPhone’s security features.
An FBI spokesman declined to comment on whether any discussions had taken place between the bureau and Apple about how the phone was accessed, but said Apple would likely have to take the matter up with the White House.
There is an existing process, overseen by the White House, through which the government notifies private companies of security loopholes.
Jay Kaplan, CEO of the cybersecurity company Synack, says Apple has long been aware that high-level hackers could access its devices, but was now facing as much of a public relations issue as a security concern.
"There are many cases in which these devices are being compromised, whether that's NSA, CIA, whatever it might be, they're doing this behind the scenes without Apple ever knowing that it's happening," he says. "But the sheer fact that it's so public means Apple has to make a public statement by trying to compel the government to tell them about it so they can fix the problem."
One key facet that remains unresolved is what the implications of the FBI’s new found ability to breach iPhone encryption will be in the numerous other cases where investigators want to access the locked iPhone of a suspect or victim.
Local authorities have reportedly already been reaching out to the FBI in hopes that the bureau will share its insight with their investigations.
In one such case police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana believe information stored on the iPhone of a murder victim could lead them to her killer, but have been unable to hack into the device.
The standoff between Apple and the FBI engendered fierce debates over privacy versus security, and what responsibilities the private sector has to aid the government.
It appeared that the legal battle would drag on for months before the US Justice Department suddenly announced that it would ask that the order compelling Apple to cooperate be dropped.
“Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that, with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that iPhone without compromising any information on the phone,” U.S. Attorney Eileen Decker said in a statement
Apple responded with a statement of its own saying the case “never should have been brought”.
“From the beginning, we objected to the FBI’s demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent,” it said.
Customs
and Border Protection shows Tashfeen Malik (left) and Syed Farook, as
they passed through O'Hare International Airport in Chicago Photo: APApple has not publicly confirmed that it will try and force the FBI’s hand, but has said it is continuing to work to improve the iPhone’s security features.
An FBI spokesman declined to comment on whether any discussions had taken place between the bureau and Apple about how the phone was accessed, but said Apple would likely have to take the matter up with the White House.
There is an existing process, overseen by the White House, through which the government notifies private companies of security loopholes.
Jay Kaplan, CEO of the cybersecurity company Synack, says Apple has long been aware that high-level hackers could access its devices, but was now facing as much of a public relations issue as a security concern.
"There are many cases in which these devices are being compromised, whether that's NSA, CIA, whatever it might be, they're doing this behind the scenes without Apple ever knowing that it's happening," he says. "But the sheer fact that it's so public means Apple has to make a public statement by trying to compel the government to tell them about it so they can fix the problem."
One key facet that remains unresolved is what the implications of the FBI’s new found ability to breach iPhone encryption will be in the numerous other cases where investigators want to access the locked iPhone of a suspect or victim.
Local authorities have reportedly already been reaching out to the FBI in hopes that the bureau will share its insight with their investigations.
In one such case police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana believe information stored on the iPhone of a murder victim could lead them to her killer, but have been unable to hack into the device.
The standoff between Apple and the FBI engendered fierce debates over privacy versus security, and what responsibilities the private sector has to aid the government.
It appeared that the legal battle would drag on for months before the US Justice Department suddenly announced that it would ask that the order compelling Apple to cooperate be dropped.
“Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that, with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that iPhone without compromising any information on the phone,” U.S. Attorney Eileen Decker said in a statement
Apple responded with a statement of its own saying the case “never should have been brought”.
“From the beginning, we objected to the FBI’s demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent,” it said.
Miss Ada
