CASE is closed, it says so. The FBI claims to be able to unlock the iPhone of one of the perpetrators of the massacre of San Bernardino, which Apple refused to do; is confirmed – albeit unofficially – that succeed were the hackers of the Israeli security company (the Cellebrite); Apple itself says that the open court case (and now closed) in the court of Riverside – following a standoff with federal – was wrong even booted. It reiterates that wants to know how the FBI was able to “pierce” the protections of the iPhone in order to remedy the vulnerability. In short, the case that has divided the United States has put them out on the carpet all the burning issues – the comparison between the right to privacy and the right to security. But who won and who lost after this first round?
“This story could be a boomerang for Apple media. One can not claim that their devices are more secure than others if we are violated in a few days. The lesson that can be drawn from this story is that there is nothing invulnerable and that the security of the data depends exclusively by users, “says the agency Ansa Andrea Zapparoli Manzoni , an expert computer security and member of Clusit, the Italian association for information security. “Apple has taken an indefensible line for marketing reasons. He would have to work together and take a more low profile since it is a terrorism investigation, even more reassuring to the users. It is one thing Apple itself which offers a solution to the government American, another is to see a third party in a few days to unlock an iPhone. it shows that there is nothing for sure, that the security of the data depends on us and not by Apple. Some recoil in sales for sure it will, “concludes Zapparoli Manzoni.
iPhone Rizwan Syed Farook , one of the two bombers who last December opened fire in San Bernardino (california), killing 14 people, “could perhaps be released by the FBI right now, “he says Louis Martin , teaching and research assistant in ICT policies and Cyber security at the university of Florence, interviewed by Cyber Affairs . But “behind this stall, flush, you can glimpse the will on the part of the federal government of the United States – will, however, repeatedly invoked by recent executive order of Barack Obama – to provide for greater cooperation with the companies of Silicon Valley, which have proved, however, always very warm compared to the long awaited public-private partnership “. For Martin affair has shown on the one hand “that technology can be an element of strength and weakness at the same time.” Or “the release by the FBI – or through outside help – shows that, to date, most of the systems – commercial and non – can be punctured regardless of whether they are governments or simple hacker”. The second point is “more inherent with the interests at stake: somehow the FBI wanted to demonstrate the supremacy of national security over the interests of the consumer of Apple in Cupertino.”
Maurizio Mensi , a lawyer and professor of business law at the SNA, the administration’s national school, professor of information law and communication at the Luiss University of Rome, said: “Apple have declared their intention to continue the court battle, with the possibility to turn to the supreme court “to appeal to the right to privacy. However, adds talking to Cyber Affairs, “none of the parties would probably be interested in taking the case to its logical conclusion”. Are mainly two, according Mensi, the aspects to be detected in this affair: one of a technical nature, ie “the ability to crack a system that Apple continues to declare impenetrable from the outside” and that will probably lead Cupertino “to ask for explanations about” ; and another aspect of a legal nature, which highlights how “the FBI requests and the subsequent release of the phone, even if conducted independently, are not to be considered illegitimate, because they already validated previously by a third party, ie a Federal judge who had found the correct demands of the department of justice in the face of such a delicate investigation that relates to national security of the country “. That’s why, the expert emphasizes, “the case can perhaps be considered closed, but the problem is not solved and could re-emerge. At stake is the definition of a global balance between security and privacy, autonomy of giants like Apple and also the tug of war still in progress on international negotiations and agreements such as the EU-US Privacy Shield. “
the case Apple-FBI says Stefano Mele , which specializes in law attorney technology, privacy, security of information and intelligence in an interview with Cyber Affairs “has always seemed a perfect media strategy win-win, which is where both of the protagonists win in the end: l ‘ fbi, declaring publicly and so hard not to be able to get the last part of the information on the criminal’s cell, can ask and above all justify the request for more funds to the US government for this kind of activity; Apple, however, for its part, it may appear – as it appears today – as a staunch bulwark to defend the privacy of its customers, even more so after the known events of Edward Snowden . This, and of course the need to avoid creating a precedent that would prompt other countries and their investigative structures to advance similar claims. “
The most important aspect of this news, Apple says,” he is still once each system, as it may be considered safe, sooner or later (more first, which then) will still violated. What really matters, and that can greatly restrict the times is only the economic interest linked to the violation (as in the FBI-Apple case) or to the value of the information that must be retrieved (as in the case, for example, the almost totality the electronic espionage activities). “Mele concludes:” Apple now has every incentive to try to understand in a short time with the FBI or whoever it may be able to circumvent the protection system, in order to produce as soon as possible a patch. I doubt, however, that this information will come precisely from the FBI or other US government facilities. “
No comments:
Post a Comment