TechCentralTechCentral
    Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
    TechCentralTechCentral
    NEWSLETTER
    • News

      Fixing SA’s power crisis is not complex: it simply takes the will to do better

      12 August 2022

      Consortium makes unsolicited bid for state’s 40% stake in Telkom

      12 August 2022

      Actually, solar users should pay more to access the grid – here’s why

      12 August 2022

      Telkom says MTN talks remain on track

      12 August 2022

      Analysis | Rain muddies the waters with approach to Telkom

      11 August 2022
    • World

      Tencent woes mount, even after $560-billion selloff

      12 August 2022

      Huawei just booked its first sales rise since US blacklisting

      12 August 2022

      Apple remains upbeat about iPhone sales even as Android world suffers

      12 August 2022

      Ether at two-month high as upgrade to blockchain passes major test

      12 August 2022

      Gaming industry’s fortunes fade as pandemic ends

      11 August 2022
    • In-depth

      African unicorn Flutterwave battles fires on multiple fronts

      11 August 2022

      The length of Earth’s days has been increasing – and no one knows why

      7 August 2022

      As Facebook fades, the Mad Men of advertising stage a comeback

      2 August 2022

      Crypto breaks the rules. That’s the point

      27 July 2022

      E-mail scams are getting chillingly personal

      17 July 2022
    • Podcasts

      Qush on infosec: why prevention is always better than cure

      11 August 2022

      e4’s Adri Führi on encouraging more women into tech careers

      10 August 2022

      How South Africa can woo more women into tech

      4 August 2022

      Book and check-in via WhatsApp? FlySafair is on it

      28 July 2022

      Interview: Why Dell’s next-gen PowerEdge servers change the game

      28 July 2022
    • Opinion

      No reason South Africa should have a shortage of electricity: Ramaphosa

      11 July 2022

      Ntshavheni’s bias against the private sector

      8 July 2022

      South Africa can no longer rely on Eskom alone

      4 July 2022

      Has South Africa’s advertising industry lost its way?

      21 June 2022

      Rob Lith: What Icasa’s spectrum auction means for SA companies

      13 June 2022
    • Company Hubs
      • 1-grid
      • Altron Document Solutions
      • Amplitude
      • Atvance Intellect
      • Axiz
      • BOATech
      • CallMiner
      • Digital Generation
      • E4
      • ESET
      • Euphoria Telecom
      • IBM
      • Kyocera Document Solutions
      • Microsoft
      • Nutanix
      • One Trust
      • Pinnacle
      • Skybox Security
      • SkyWire
      • Tarsus on Demand
      • Videri Digital
      • Zendesk
    • Sections
      • Banking
      • Broadcasting and Media
      • Cloud computing
      • Consumer electronics
      • Cryptocurrencies
      • Education and skills
      • Energy
      • Fintech
      • Information security
      • Internet and connectivity
      • Internet of Things
      • Investment
      • IT services
      • Motoring and transport
      • Public sector
      • Science
      • Social media
      • Talent and leadership
      • Telecoms
    • Advertise
    TechCentralTechCentral
    Home»Editor's pick»Why Apple is making a stand against the FBI

    Why Apple is making a stand against the FBI

    Editor's pick By The Conversation19 February 2016
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email
    Tim Cook portait, by  Thierry Ehrmann
    Tim Cook painted portait, by Thierry Ehrmann

    Apple has been ordered to help FBI investigators access data on the phone belonging to San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook. The technical solution proposed by the FBI appears to undermine Apple’s earlier claim that they would be unable to help. However, in a strongly worded reply, Apple CEO Tim Cook has indicated that Apple is unwilling to comply with this order, as it would do irreparable damage to all iPhone owners’ security and privacy.

    On newer Apple phones like Farook’s (an iPhone 5c, running iOS 9 according to the court motion), data stored on the phone is protected by encryption, using the passcode (which is also used for unlocking the phone) as part of the key. (This is a different issue from “end-to-end encryption”, which concerns iMessages when they are in transit between phones.)

    Apple recently claimed that they were unable to decrypt such information at all, as they do not have the passcode. This is also the line it takes in its policy statement on providing information to governments, first posted in May 2014.

    Blocking brute force

    In the court order, the FBI is undermining this claim. The FBI claims that Apple can write and run software that can help discover the passcode and access Farook’s data. The software should switch off security features that currently prevent a “brute force attack” — trying all possible passcodes — which should take little time if the passcode is “numerical” as claimed by the FBI.

    One of these security features is an enforced increasing delay between repeated passcode attempts, which would make brute force attempts take too excessive a time. The other defence against brute force is auto-erasure: if this is switched on (as appears likely), after 10 failed attempts, the data on the phone is effectively erased.

    Finally, to enable automation of the brute force attack, the FBI is asking for a method to enter passcodes electronically. With all of this, the FBI has been careful to point out that it would not be attempting to break encryption — but merely asking Apple to remove security measures that get in the way of the FBI discovering the key.

    A message to its customers

    In its response, Apple has not gone down the road of claiming that the suggested approach will not work. This may be an indication that it could actually work, but also a deliberate choice to focus the argument elsewhere. Crucially, Cook’s response appears targeted at the public: it’s headed “A Message to Our Customers”. This is in line with Apple’s general marketing, which emphasises privacy as a selling point.

    Cook stresses how dangerous the proposed software would be for personal security. iPhone encryption now protects all sorts of important personal data, and once software like this exists, it could end up in the wrong hands or be used for much wider purposes by governments. Essentially, it would weaken encryption permanently for Apple’s customers.

    Cook also makes it clear that Apple has no sympathy with terrorists — but points out they will always be able to find more secure methods if Apple’s security is weakened. The FBI’s argument that the software would be less risky by only being built for the specific phone is also quickly dismissed.

    Making a stand

    Cook makes a strong stand against this and other so-called backdoor methods of accessing a phone’s data. He argues that companies should not be asked to systematically undermine the security they build into their products.

    This echoes Apple’s recently submitted evidence on the UK draft Investigatory Powers Bill. There, Apple strongly resisted being asked to assist in “bulk equipment interference” and “removal of electronic protection”, either of which could allow UK intelligence and law enforcement to make requests very similar to the FBI’s. IT lawyer Neil Brown even suggested that the UK has a similar law to the 1789 All Writs Act invoked to justify this US case.

    The nominal audience may have been Apple’s customers, but really Cook chose to make a stand against governments. The argument that encryption is a necessary component of security and privacy in a modern society appeared to be won already. However, companies cannot meaningfully offer security and privacy measures to their customers if they are simultaneously forced to subvert them for governments, with all the risks involved.

    Apple is demanding the right to operate in the market it is carving out for itself. We may feel the company has common sense on their side, but it is clear that the battle over the legal position is far from over.The Conversation

    • Eerke Boiten is senior lecturer, School of Computing and director of Academic Centre of Excellence in Cyber Security Research, University of Kent
    • This article was originally published on The Conversation
    Apple FBI Tim Cook
    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email
    Previous ArticleComputer viruses as an art form
    Next Article Investors dump MTN after profit warning

    Related Posts

    Tencent woes mount, even after $560-billion selloff

    12 August 2022

    Huawei just booked its first sales rise since US blacklisting

    12 August 2022

    Apple remains upbeat about iPhone sales even as Android world suffers

    12 August 2022
    Add A Comment

    Comments are closed.

    Promoted

    Get your brand in front of TechCentral’s amazing audience

    12 August 2022

    Pricing Beyond CMYK: printers answer the FAQs

    11 August 2022

    How secure is your cloud?

    10 August 2022
    Opinion

    No reason South Africa should have a shortage of electricity: Ramaphosa

    11 July 2022

    Ntshavheni’s bias against the private sector

    8 July 2022

    South Africa can no longer rely on Eskom alone

    4 July 2022

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    © 2009 - 2022 NewsCentral Media

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.