In another twist in its case against tech giant Apple, the U.S. government announced Monday that it might not need the company’s help after all in unlocking the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone.
The Justice Department said a third party has demonstrated to the F.B.I. a potentially viable way to work around the phone’s encryption.
Katie Benner and Matt Apuzzo of The New York Times had the day’s news:
The Justice Department said on Monday that it might no longer need Apple’s assistance in opening an iPhone used by a gunman in the San Bernardino, Calif., rampage last year.
The disclosure led a judge to postpone a court hearing over the issue and temporarily sidesteps what has become a bitter clash with the world’s most valuable company.
In a new court filing, the government said an outside party had demonstrated a way for the F.B.I. to possibly unlock the phone used by the gunman, Syed Rizwan Farook. The hearing in the contentious case — Apple has loudly opposed opening the iPhone, citing privacy concerns and igniting a heated debate — was originally set for Tuesday.
While the Justice Department must test this method, if it works “it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple,” it said in its filing. The Justice Department added that it would file a status report by April 5 on its progress.
The change is a reprieve in the clash that has erupted over how and when the authorities should use the troves of digital data collected and stored by tech companies. The two sides have traded barbs over the issue since last month, when Apple received a court order demanding that the company weaken the security of the iPhone so law enforcement officials could gain access to the data in it.
Joel Rubin and Paresh Dave of The Los Angeles Times explained the implications of the government’s announcement:
The sudden possibility that the government would no longer need Apple’s cooperation marked a jarring turn of events after weeks of rising acrimony between the two sides. Apple had steadfastly refused demands by Justice officials that it create a new computer program that, when uploaded onto the killer’s iPhone, would have provided FBI agents a way around the security barriers and allowed them to hack into the device. Federal officials insisted they had exhausted all other possible ways into the phone.
The case quickly took on significance far beyond the San Bernardino attack, becoming a major test in a broader legal dispute over the lengths technology companies must go in assisting law enforcement officials in criminal investigations.
Though Monday’s announcement offered Apple at least a temporary reprieve in what had become a risky and possibly damaging legal face-off with the U.S. government, it presented the world’s most valuable company with another troubling scenario: That some unknown group has devised a way to break into iPhones despite the company’s efforts to protect customers’ privacy with new encryption and security buffers.
In a call with reporters, Apple attorneys underscored the bind the company finds itself in. If the government does drop its demand for help, the firm will probably remain in the dark on what prosecutors learned and who taught it to them.
The attorneys, who spoke on the condition that they not be identified, said Apple would ask the government to share what vulnerability it had recently discovered as a result of Sunday’s new information. They stressed that they remained uncertain whether there is in fact a way to bypass the security measures.
The government’s announcement, the lawyers said, highlights the fears that the tech giant has repeatedly expressed during its legal fight with the government: that the company must contend with constant attempts by outside parties to crack Apple’s security measures.
Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post described what law enforcement officials had to say on the matter:
In a conference call with reporters, a second senior law enforcement official repeatedly said that “the FBI has been continuously working on all different avenues” on how to unlock the phone throughout the litigation.
He declined to offer details about who had come forward with a solution and whether it involved a vulnerability with Apple’s software.
If it’s the latter, a second Apple attorney said, they would like the government to provide details. “We have never said that our software is perfectly safe and secure,” the attorney said in a conference call with reporters.
A number of cryptography experts over the past month have described ways in which the FBI could try to unlock the phone without Apple’s help. They included exploiting bugs in Apple’s software, making copies of the phone to try cracking the passcode, and using electron beams or radio waves to try to obtain the encryption key from the phone’s chip.
The second law enforcement official declined to say whether it was a lost opportunity for the government to establish a legal precedent that authorities, under the All Writs Act, may force a company to provide technical help in unlocking an encrypted device.
“This is about getting into a terrorist’s phone,” he said. “It’s always been about this phone and the evidence that may be on it.”
