IT WAS an attempt to force access to the iPhone 5C Syed Farook, the man responsible for his wife Tashfeen Malik of San Berardino massacre where last December 2 were killed 14 people, to close forever any access to valuable information now that the FBI would like to achieve with the help of Apple. He admitted it – tells the New York Times – the same Federal Agency Director James B. Comey Jr. during a hearing Tuesday before the Judiciary Committee, the Justice Commission of the Congress of the legal battle to convince Apple to unlock the iPhone.
Cupertino actually had accused from the moment the FBI that he acted with an excess of “impulsivity”: having ordered 24 hours after the attack to the technicians of the Department of public Health of San Bernardino – employers Farook and owners of the iPhone – to change the password for iCloud (online archives relating to that account and the smartphone) to gain access to sensitive data of the aggressor, the last phone calls paths recorded by GPS. The move, however, has admitted for the first time the head of the FBI, was particularly unhappy because he has achieved the opposite effect, permanently blocking all access to the cell information, which had made its last backup on October 15, a month and a half before the attack.
and to think that the valuable information could be retrieved by simply bringing the phone close to a wifi known to him, such as the terrorist home, to get back up automatic that he would be more easily accessible without the need to force the phone that you want is closed on itself because of too many login attempts. Meanwhile, while waiting for the decision of the Congress, the controversial issue lands overseas. He tells Li Yuan, technology columnist for the Wall Street Journal, on his column China Circuit: Apple’s refusal to release the iPhone5 of San Bernardino fact is particularly significant when viewed from Beijing’s point of view.
what would happen, in fact, if it were the Chinese government to demand the release of an iPhone with an investigation and the reasons for that in the eyes of the government is on alleged terrorists, but who may have simply activists or dissidents who do not like China? The issue, explains Li Yuan, interested in Apple strongly: that the Chinese market gets 25 percent of its revenue, and does not want to go for the company that sells information to the schemes. Cupertino said it clearly last week, although without naming China clearly: “To develop a gateway that will force the cell would end up becoming, sooner or later, a tool in the hands of foreign governments.
Yeah. But what if instead of having an iPhone in your pocket terrorists San Bernardino had used a mobile phone supported by the Android operating system, such as a Galaxy Samsung? If it is called the Washington Post that points out that between the two leading companies in the sale of smartphones there is a key difference: Apple controls both the hardware (the instrument) that its mobile software. Samsung instead uses the Android operating system developed by Google and later adapted to the needs of the device that supports it. What does this mean? First, the WP says, that even if the system allows encryption, this is still not very widespread among its users. With marshmallows, the operating system released last October, encryption is mandatory for new generation devices sold by that date. For previous smartphone, the classified status system is activated by the user depending on the capabilities and operating system.
To date, in fact, only 1.2 percent of Android uses marshmallow: it follows that for the most part, the data of its users are not encrypted. But even if the smartphone was encrypted, we would not need to seek access to the software, it would be enough to access the hardware. Explains the WP Chris Soghoian, an expert on the American Civil Liberties Union technologies that takes care to ensure the privacy of personal data. In a case like that of San Bernardino, he says, there would be more roads to beat to get the information that today asks the FBI: going from those smartphone produced it, from the provider that manages the traffic and so on. This of course does not mean that access to the data would be easier. He does know the same Samsung in a document sent to the Washington Post where he explains that just like Apple, open roads to give preferential access to the Government to the information contained on its handsets is certainly part of its policy because it would undermine the trust of customers. But, he notes, “if the request complies with the law, we will work in the areas of law”: therefore assume that it would be ready to consider case by case basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment