{"id":70122,"date":"2016-02-22T12:00:56","date_gmt":"2016-02-22T12:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=70122"},"modified":"2016-02-21T18:41:39","modified_gmt":"2016-02-21T18:41:39","slug":"tim-cook-u-s-government-wants-something-we-consider-too-dangerous-to-create","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2016\/02\/tim-cook-u-s-government-wants-something-we-consider-too-dangerous-to-create\/","title":{"rendered":"Tim Cook: U.S. Government Wants \u2018Something We Consider Too Dangerous to Create\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why Apple refuses to hack into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Tim<\/a>

Tim Cook. (photo: Joe Pugliese\/Fortune)<\/p><\/div>\n

17 Feb 2016 – <\/em>Hours after a federal judge ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock the iPhone used by one of the shooters who carried out the Dec. 2 terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., the technology giant\u2019s chief executive declared that he would fight the government\u2019s \u201cunprecedented\u201d demands.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good,\u201d Apple CEO Tim Cook said in a strongly worded open letter. \u201cUp 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

The order, signed Tuesday by a magistrate judge in Riverside, Calif.<\/a>, does not ask Apple to break the phone\u2019s encryption but rather to disable the feature that wipes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect tries at entering a password. That way, the government can try to crack the password using \u201cbrute force\u201d \u2014 attempting tens of millions of combinations without risking the deletion of the data.<\/p>\n

The government requested the order after saying Apple failed to provide assistance voluntarily. Last week, FBI Director James B. Comey told Congress that the bureau has not been able to open the phone belonging to one of the killers.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt has been two months now, and we are still working on it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The phone, an iPhone5C, was used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, opened fire at a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center, a county facility. The couple, who pledged loyalty to the Islamic State terrorist group, died a few hours later in a shootout with police.<\/p>\n

\"Apple<\/a>

Apple CEO Tim Cook released a statement arguing against the FBI’s recent order to hack into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone 5c.\u00a0 (Jhaan Elker\/The Washington Post)<\/p><\/div>\n

In his open letter, Cook said Apple was \u201cchallenging the FBI\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

The government, Cook said, \u201cis asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers \u2014 including tens of millions of American citizens \u2014 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

He added: \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Apple<\/a>

Apple was founded in a garage by Steve Jobs, pictured here, and Steve Wozniak. The young entrepreneurs brought different strengths to their fledgling company: Jobs had a flair for conceptualizing products, while Wozniak had the technical know-how to make them happen. In this 1977 photo, Steve Jobs introduces the Apple II, one of the company\u2019s early successes. AP<\/p><\/div>\n

Here is Cook\u2019s statement in full:<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Need for Encryption<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers\u2019 personal data because we believe it\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

The San Bernardino Case<\/em><\/p>\n

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\u2019s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.<\/em><\/p>\n

When the FBI has requested data that\u2019s 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\u2019ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

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 \u2014 which does not exist today \u2014 would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone\u2019s physical possession.<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Threat to Data Security<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

In today\u2019s digital world, the \u201ckey\u201d 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that\u2019s 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 \u2014 from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.<\/em><\/p>\n

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers \u2014 including tens of millions of American citizens \u2014 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

A Dangerous Precedent<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

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 \u201cbrute force,\u201d trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.<\/em><\/p>\n

The implications of the government\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s microphone or camera without your knowledge.<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

We are challenging the FBI\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

While we believe the FBI\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

Tim Cook<\/em><\/p>\n

_________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

As encryption spreads, U.S. grapples with clash between privacy, security<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

FBI tries to figure out what San Bernardino shooters did in 18-miute window<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Freedom du Lac is the editor of<\/em> The Post’s general assignment news desk. He was previously a Local enterprise reporter and, before that, the paper\u2019s pop music critic.<\/em><\/p>\n

Ellen Nakashima is a national security reporter for <\/em>The Washington Post. She focuses on issues relating to intelligence, technology and civil liberties.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 washingtonpost.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[216],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}