Datenschutz
Post:Mi. 24.02.2016 07:50h
Upd.:Do. 25.02.2016 08:11h
Rubr.:Datenschutz
Tags:

Weitere Entwicklung Apple vs. FBI

NYTimes.com über die Umstände, die zu Apples öffentlicher Antwort führten:

Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response

Slate über die Dringlichkeit, das iPhone zu entschlüsseln:

As the request noted, the government first got a warrant for and seized this phone […] on Dec. 3, just hours after the attack. […] On Jan. 29, the government had to renew its warrant to access the content of the phone. […] Contrary to Comey’s description, “We’re still working on it,” the phone apparently just sat there. Had the phone been that urgent you would have thought the FBI would have asked for an All Writs order in December.

Apple FAQ zur Frage, warum Apple nicht „dieses eine“ iPhone entsperren kann:

Law enforcement agents around the country [weltweit?] have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks. Of course, Apple would do our best to protect that key, but in a world where all of our data is under constant threat, it would be relentlessly attacked by hackers and cybercriminals. As recent attacks on the IRS systems and countless other data breaches have shown, no one is immune to cyberattacks.

Also: entweder ein Generalschlüssel oder gar kein Schlüssel. Tailored Access kann Apple nicht bzw. kann niemand (ernsthaft garantieren). Vielleicht ist damit die Grenze des “undue burden” erreicht?
Re/code veröffentlicht Apples internes Memo-eMail zum Wie-soll-es-jetzt-weitergehen:

We feel the best way forward would be for the government to withdraw its demands under the All Writs Act and, as some in Congress have proposed, form a commission or other panel of experts on intelligence, technology and civil liberties to discuss the implications for law enforcement, national security, privacy and personal freedoms. Apple would gladly participate in such an effort.

James Comey stimmt bei Lawfare zu…

It should be resolved by the American people deciding how we want to govern ourselves in a world we have never seen before. We shouldn’t drift to a place—or be pushed to a place by the loudest voices—because finding the right place, the right balance, will matter to every American for a very long time.  

…ABER erstmal muss dieses spezielle iPhone entschlüsselt werden, ohne Rücksicht auf Konsequenzen:

So I hope folks will remember what terrorists did to innocent Americans at a San Bernardino office gathering and why the FBI simply must do all we can under the law to investigate that.

Aber warum jetzt die Vehemenz? “Fourteen people were slaughtered and many more had their lives and bodies ruined. We owe them a thorough and professional investigation under law.” Ist mir zu viel Rhetorik und zu wenig handfeste Hinweise auf Mittäter, die es noch zu verfolgen gibt.
thegrugq:

Farook destroyed his personal phone. The FBI wants access to his work phone. […]

FBI already has a massive amounts of data, all of which indicates that Farook and Malik were not in contact with a foreign terrorist organisation, nor were they in contact with any other unknown terrorists.

Wenn er Kontakt zu einer Terrorgruppe hatte, dann höchstwahrscheinlich von seinem privaten Handy. Würde dazu passen, dass dieses zerstört wurde. Muss aber nicht sein. Unabhängig davon: warum wurde das andere Handy nicht zerstört? Höchstwahrscheinlich weil nichts verwertbares darauf gespeichert ist. Gewissheit bringt jedoch nur die Entschlüsselung, aber ist die um jeden Preis erforderlich?

Apple Anwalt Ted Olson spricht laut LA Times von einer Büchse der Pandora:

To comply with the FBI’s demand […] would spring open “Pandora’s box,” endangering the privacy of millions of Apple customers here and abroad, an Apple attorney said Sunday.
“There’s no limit to what the government could require Apple to do if it succeeds this way,” attorney Ted Olson told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

Für die NSA wäre das ein riesiges, einfaches Einfallstor, um iPhones auf dem Postweg  per permanenter Hintertür zu „übernehmen“. Ob die diesen Zugriff ohnehin bereits haben?

Warum ist von Journalisten, Rechtsanwälten und Banken so wenig zu hören? Die US-amerikanische Gesellschaft scheint von der Entwicklung zum Polizeistaat nicht besonders beeindruckt zu sein. 

Update 18h Bloomberg Business erklärt wie Apple sich aus der Affäre ziehen könnte:

Apple is expected to argue in federal court that code should be protected as speech. […] Just as the government can’t make a journalist write a story on its behalf, according to this view, it can’t force Apple to write an operating system with weaker security. […]

Und dann sollen sie diese Software auch noch digital „unterschreiben“

In the FBI case, some privacy advocates believe the company has a strong First Amendment case because it’s being asked to add that signature, against its will, to software that would aid the government.

„The signature is part of Apple’s security ecosystem; it’s a promise that Apple believes this code is safe for you to run,“ said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society. „The phone doesn’t run software that Apple hasn’t signed.“

Und warum Apple diese Software nicht unterschreiben will haben sie ja schon ausreichend dargelegt. 

Update 25.02. Tim Cook im Interview mit ABC News:

If a court can ask us to write this piece of software, think about what else they could ask us to write — maybe it’s an operating system for surveillance, maybe the ability for the law enforcement to turn on the camera. I don’t know where this stops. But I do know that this is not what should be happening in this country.