FBI

Eddy Cue: what if FBI forces Apple to spy on users via iPhone’s camera or microphone?

Not a day goes by without one of Apple’s executives reaffirming the company’s position on encryption. In a new Spanish-language interview with Univision, Eddy Cue, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Internet Software and Services, made the case against the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) gaining additional surveillance powers.

Were the government to force Apple to create a version of iOS with decreased security, nothing would prevent it from seeking other concessions, Cue said.

“For example, one day the FBI may want us to open your phone’s camera, microphone,” he cautioned. “Those are things we can’t do now. But if they can force us to do that, I think that’s very bad.”

Video: Steve Wozniak sides with Apple in FBI fight

As a strong proponent of privacy and human rights, it is now wonder that Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak would stand firmly with Apple in its fight against the FBI and the United States government regarding creating a backdoor into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone.

Appearing on the Conan show last night, the Woz said the FBI “picked the lamest case you ever could”. It’s “worthless” to expect something’s on the shooter’s iPhone 5c that the FBI wants to break into because Verizon had already turned over all the phone records and SMS messages and law enforcement got iCloud backups form Apple.

Apple’s Craig Federighi: creating iPhone backdoor would be ‘a serious mistake’

Craig Federighi, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Software Engineering who oversees the development of iOS, OS X and Apple’s common operating system engineering team, has written an op-ed piece in The Washington Post in which he reiterates Apple’s position that the FBI’s demand that Apple create a version of iOS with decreased security would be “a serious mistake,” saying the FBI wants to “turn back the clock to a less-secure time”.

How Apple secures its products and services

Apple’s security and privacy features that come standard on every iOS device, such as end-to-end encryption and Activation Lock, are getting all the talk around the internet as of late as the Apple vs. FBI case continues to escalate.

What can be learned from this case is not only does Apple want to protect your privacy, but the a large number of American people also want to have their privacy. The FBI, on the other hand, wants a quick way to get into any iPhone they deem “suspicious” so long as they can get a court order to search it.

So just how secure is your Apple data, and what protection standards does Apple have in place for you? That’s just what we’re going to talk about in this piece.

Unsurprisingly, Samsung stops short of voicing open support for Apple in FBI fight

Apple’s dispute with the United States government over a court order demanding that it create an insecure version of iOS to help the FBI break the passcode of the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone 5c has gained support from more than 40 parties, according to The New York Times.

Samsung, however, likely won’t be one of them.

As reported by Bloomberg, Samsung generally supports the notion that “any requirement to create a backdoor could undermine consumers’ trust,” but stopped short of voicing open support for its rival.

New York judge rules in favor of Apple in separate iPhone unlock case

A Brooklyn judge has ruled in favor of Apple in a New York iPhone case, reports TechCrunch. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of the US District Court has denied a U.S. government request to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone that has been deemed evidence in a drug case.

This is a separate case from the one going on in California involving an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardinho shooters, that has garnered so much attention in recent weeks. But the circumstances are similar enough that the judge’s ruling is sure to help Apple in its FBI battle.

Here’s what Apple’s chief lawyer will tell Congress tomorrow regarding FBI’s controversial request

As you know, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has obtained a court order demanding that Apple produce a special version of iOS with decreased security to help government spooks brute-force their way into an iPhone 5c which belonged to San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.

Following the interview that Apple CEO Tim Cook gave to ABC News, in which he said that the government is asking for “the software equivalent of cancer,” Apple’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Bruce Sewell, will testify before the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

Here’s his opening statement in which he challenges the government’s request and argues that the FBI should have no say over the products American companies create.

Apple officially responds to court, asks it to vacate order to help FBI

Apple on Thursday filed a motion to vacate the court order demanding it help the FBI break into an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino attacks. The motion (via The Verge) is the company’s first legal response to the order, which was handed down by a federal judge last week.

Rhetoric in the filing echoes what we’ve been hearing from CEO Tim Cook over the past week: Apple refuses to help the FBI break its own security because it sets a dangerous precedent that has major implications. It also offers some insight into the legal stance Apple plans to take.

Here’s a recap of what Tim Cook said about the FBI and iPhone hacking on ABC News

Apple CEO Tim Cook was on ABC News last night, spending some time with reporter David Muir in his minimalist Cupertino, California office discussing the FBI case and how the government’s demands risk undermining every iPhone owner’s security.

For those who didn’t have the time to sit through the 60-minute interview, Cook reiterated Apple’s stance that the government’s demand that it create a one-off version of iOS with decreased security to help get data off the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone 5c sets a dangerous precedent, likening it to “the software equivalent of cancer.”

Can’t the Feds exploit San Bernardino shooter iPhone’s chips to break into encrypted data?

The world’s most powerful government has locked horns with the world’s most powerful corporation in a battle that Apple implies has the potential to affect civil rights for a generation. As you know, the Justice Department gave Apple until February 26 to respond to its court order.

In it, the government is asking Apple’s engineers to create a special version of iOS that would allow brute-force passcode attacks on the shooter’s phone electronically.

Now, some people have suggested that the government’s experts could make an exact copy of the phone’s flash memory to brute-force its way into encrypted data on a powerful computer without needing to guess the passcode on the phone or demand that Apple create a version of iOS that’d remove passcode entry restrictions.

While this is technically feasible, the so-called de-capping method would be painstakingly slow and extremely risky, here’s why.

San Bernardino victims side with FBI in iPhone decryption fight

Lawyers representing families of the victims of the San Bernardino shooting massacre plan to file a legal brief in support of the United States Department of Justice’s demand that Apple help unlock the shooter’s iPhone 5c by creating a one-off version of iOS to permit brute-force attacks electronically, without the phone slowing down the process or erasing its contents after 10 failed attempts.

According to Reuters, Stephen Larson, a former federal judge who is now in private practice and represents families of the victims, was contacted a week ago by the Justice Department and local prosecutors about representing the victims, prior to the dispute becoming public.

Apple posts public Q&A on FBI request

In addition to an all-hands memo issued to troops Monday about the government’s demand that it create what would basically be an ‘FBiOS,’ a software backdoor to help unlock San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, Apple has also posted a public Q&A on its website this morning, showing a company unwavering in its position that fulfilling the request would constitute a dangerous precedent.

Titled “Answers to your questions about Apple and security,” the webpage details the case and provides some more technical information about the government’s request, while also answering some of the burning questions such as whether Apple has unlocked iPhones for law enforcement in the past.