The FBI and Apple had gone head-to-head over the past six weeks with the latter demanding Apple met its request to pull data from the iPhone 5C used by the San Bernardino gunman, Syed Farook.
The FBI is claiming that it has found a way to hack into the device via an anonymous third party – it has been reported that the Israeli security company Cellebrite was involved with extracting data from the phone, but the company has refused to comment.
It has certainly been a bruising few weeks for both parties. Apple’s decision not to accede to the FBI’s request has generated a heated debate between those arguing for enhanced levels of security and those, primarily in the technology community, arguing for greater customer privacy.
“We will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along, and we will continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data become more frequent and more sophisticated,” Apple said in a statement.
The Apple brand has to accept that device security has been broken so customers will be entitled to ask whether their device is safe. And while the FBI has broken this one device can it now break all of them? Will customers updating their operating systems be able to close this back door into their devices?
Apple is now asking the FBI to reveal how it successfully cracked the phone. If the case is closed, and a decision is due shortly, then Apple would find it very hard to close any holes in its security. The FBI could be forced to disclose its methods, but that would depend in it being unable to show that revealing them would not be in the national interest.
Should the FBI reveal how it cracked Apple’s security? If it does, Apple would be able to make all iPhones secure; but should it reveal an investigative technique?
If Apple has to re-engineer its products wouldn’t that be giving government a massive say in how products are manufactured?
These questions are huge, especially in light of what happened in Brussels last week. While it remains unclear what steps either side will now be taking, we can be sure that the security v privacy debate will continue and there remains much to play for.
