[ad_1]
A new biography of Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, released this month, describes the timing – and the deliberations – after the FBI issued an unprecedented legal order asking Apple to undermine the security of its product Lighthouse.
The new book "Tim Cook: the genius that pushed Apple to the next level" Leander Kahney presents a glimpse of the situation of former employees on how Apple fought against the order, which, according to Cook, would "Too dangerous" to comply. .
Three years ago, following the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, which left 12 dead and dozens wounded, the FBI asked Apple to create a special version of its mobile software that could bypass the encryption and other security features on the iPhone used by one of the shooters. But, fearing that the backdoor software will end up in the wrong hands, Cook wrote in a public letter that the company would reject the order and fight in front of the FBI. "This software would have the potential to unlock any iPhone owned by anyone," Cook said. The result would be a public battle between the technology giant and the government in a multi-month lawsuit until the government pays for the hackers to enter the aircraft.
Apple has long claimed that the Justice Department wanted to fight Apple in public to win the public following the attack – painting Apple to help terrorists – and asked for a court order before the company could react .
If Apple had lost the case, its long-standing mantra of privacy and security would be broken. Cook reportedly "bet the company" on the decision to fight the order, according to Apple 's former general counsel, Brian Sewell, quoted in the book.
Sewell described the FBI's command as a turning point after "a lot of activity" that preceded the decision of former FBI director James Comey to ask a judge to sign the decision.
The order was made on an obscure law known as the All Writs Act, which the FBI interpreted as a way of asking a court to order a company to do something that would not happen. is not otherwise covered by law. An order can not be "unduly burdensome", a subjective term often determined by the court that rendered it.
Sewell said the FBI had already asked Apple, as early as 2014, "to get massive access to phones" after Apple launched iOS 8, which encrypted iPhones and iPads with a code of 39; access. The forces of the order had difficulty in introducing into the devices that, in their opinion, were necessary to investigate crimes. There was no other possible way to break into an iPhone – even with a court order. Even Apple could not unlock the devices. The company declined the FBI's request.
But the book says the law enforcement agencies "saw an opportunity to force Apple's hand," wrote Kahney.
"The FBI felt like it was the perfect storm," Sewell was quoted by the press as saying. "We are now in a tragic situation. We have a phone We have a dead attacker. This is the moment when we will push it. And that's when the FBI decided to drop [the order]," he said.
Apple knew that public opinion was divided. But the company did not give up.
Over the next two months, Apple's executive floor located in One Infinite Loop in Cupertino "has turned into a 24/7 operation room" , with an intensive effort to answer questions from the press – which Apple had rarely done before, known as a secret company.
The case was finally resolved without trial. The day before Apple faced the government in a California court, the government ended its lawsuit. He had paid nearly a million dollars to hackers to break the phone. Cook was "disappointed" that the case was not put on trial, according to Sewell, because he was looking for a solution that, in his opinion, would have been favorable to Apple. The legality of the order remains unclear today, despite efforts by the government to force other companies, such as Facebook, to rework their software to allow access to the police.
A spokesman for the Department of Justice did not immediately comment. Apple did not comment.
"Tim Cook: The genius that pushed Apple to the next level" is on sale April 16.
[ad_2]
Source link