A STANDOFF between Apple and the FBI more than five years ago seemed to present an impossible choice: Deny law enforcement the ability fully to investigate a terrorist attack that killed 14, or force a private company to write software that would destroy the security of its own devices. That choice, as it turns out, was false.
The Post reported this week that Azimuth Security secretly aided the Justice Department in breaking into the iPhone of one of the shooters in the 2015 San Bernardino massacre. Apple had refused to unlock the phone on the grounds that it could not do so without putting others’ information at risk; the FBI sought a court order that it eventually dropped when Azimuth helped the agency access the system. This Australian outfit, known as a poster child for so-called white-hat hacks, is devoted to studying and disclosing software vulnerabilities. The firm says it sells its services only to democratic governments. This ending is perhaps the happiest possible to a saga that might otherwise have set a troubling precedent for privacy and security worldwide.
The Apple-FBI brouhaha always came with competing equities. U.S. officials, armed with a warrant, have a legitimate interest in accessing data in criminal investigations. There are cases when this need may be especially urgent, with lives under time-sensitive threat. Indeed, in such situations Apple already routinely hands over what data it can without cracking its own code. Yet the Justice Department’s demand that Apple build a backdoor into its product for law enforcement to walk through presented a threat of its own: Any flaw that helps the good guys get in can let the bad guys in, too. The court-ordered entry the FBI was seeking might have set the stage for future overreach here in the United States, and there was also the chance that other governments less beholden to the rule of law would demand similar treatment — exploiting the case to bully all manner of companies into violating civilians’ civil liberties.
According to The Post, the FBI was “relieved but also somewhat disappointed” by the solution to its problem, having hoped a favorable ruling by a judge would bring “legal clarity” to its authority to compel companies to break encryption. Apple, meanwhile, is suing another firm in the bug-hunting business, arguing that all security researchers should reveal their findings to manufacturers. Yet Apple, too, ought to be relieved that such firms are in business — not disappointed. By commissioning a reputable consultancy to help unlock the phone using an existing vulnerability, law enforcement did what it could to make the country safer, and Apple didn’t have to make users’ data any less safe.
The outcome should serve as a reminder that in the continuing controversy over encryption the country need not choose between two bad choices. There is often a third way.
Read more: Greg Sargent: A coronavirus-infected Republican’s anger at Trump signals turbulence ahead Catherine Rampell: Republicans desperate to oppose Biden’s jobs plan settle on a nonsense reason Eugene Robinson: We all can see who the victim is. His name is not Derek Chauvin.
"Opinion" - Google News
April 17, 2021 at 08:00PM
https://ift.tt/3e4xFo8
Kill encryption, or let the terrorists win? That’s a false choice. - The Washington Post
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment