Apple responds to the FBI: you want a dangerous power – Tom’s Hardware

Apple has filed its Official Response at the judge’s request issued last week. An ordinance that wants to oblige the company to provide the necessary tools to carry out an attack brute force on an iPhone. Specifically, it is the iPhone 5C Farook Rizawan, the murderess who carried out the massacre of San Bernardino.

 
 

So far Apple had responded publicly with the now famous open letter to Tim Cook, in which he accused the FBI of wanting a real backdoor to government use. It followed an intense debate between the supporters of the position. The other part of the question raises many questions to which we have tried to answer.

 
 

“This is not a case of an iPhone isolated. Rather, this case concerns the Ministry of Justice and the FBI seeking, through the courts, a dangerous power”

 
 

appeal lacked the legal response, that of Apple’s lawyers, and arrived in the past few hours. It is essentially a request to cancel ( Motion to Vacate, PDF) against the court order issued last week.

 
 

The company says that the law cited by the judge (All Writs Act) does not apply to you. It also states that that law does not permit the court to ask her to take a. “Unreasonable burden and unprecedented”

 
 
 
 

The document also specifies that this would create an “oppressive burden and unprecedented Apple and citizens using the iPhone.” In addition, the US government, according to the request, did not show that the assistance from the company is required for the procedure.

 
 

The lawyers also suggest that the order violates the First and Fifth Amendment of the constitution. Both, in different parts, prohibit the government from forcing Apple to create computer code.

 
 

In concluding, first of attachments, it then states that the government has a laudable goal, to protect the security, but is up to citizens to decide how to pursue it – you then see the debate in Congress, not to the judges. “at every level of our legal system the company has acted to preserve certain rights” even at the cost of making the work of authorities more difficult, it reads in the conclusions.

 
 

“The desire not to leave no stone unturned, from the government, as resulting from good intentions does not authorize it to circumvent the debate and impose their point of view on society.”

 
 
 
 

Many technology companies share Apple’s position in an official way, enough to provide additional documents to the court. Among them Google, Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft – the latter in contrast to its founder Bill Gates.

 
 

GovtOS, the backdoor

 
 

The annexes submitted by Apple to the judge is particularly interesting the intervention of Erik Neuenschwander , which is Manager of User Privacy at the company itself. The expert described the situation from his point of view and states that the FBI is asking you to build an operating system that does not exist, and who baptizes GovtOS.

 
 

To create GovtOS Apple should use six technicians (plus any support staff) for 2-4 weeks, removing them from the normal course of business. After that the Cupertino company is expected to sign the software with its own private key, which the company is not prepared to do just because GovtOS arise out of obligation and not by will.

 
 

Neuenschwander illustrates the technical process required, but mainly because it explains Tim Cook spoke of backdoor (see also The judge asked Tim Cook a backdoor or a crack?). The FBI is asking for a tool that will serve only once for a single device, but according to Neuenschwander was impossible to prevent with absolute certainty replicability of this instrument. Here are some of these points:

 
 

•  

  Apple should document the activities to protect themselves in court, and already this material would be useful to carry a copy of the sui generis GovtOS.

  
   

 
• 
   

  Apple should cancel everything, but remove all traces of the code would be almost impossible.

  
   

 
• 
   

  Even if it were possible to cancel everything, Apple would in fact formed six people (or more) to an attack technique does not exist today. These people represent a living threat to the security of iOS, and a potential resource for those wishing to make a back door.

  
   

 
• 
   

  In anticipation of future requests, Apple should budget to redo the job every time, or keep a copy of GovtOS ready for use. The mere existence of such copies requires a danger.

  
   

 

Neuenschwander then argues that once created GovtOS, it would be impossible to destroy it really. “”