The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: san bernadino
U.S. Ramps Up Apple Fight With New Filing In iPhone Unlocking Case

U.S. Ramps Up Apple Fight With New Filing In iPhone Unlocking Case

By Dustin Volz and Julia Edwards

WASHINGTON/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion on Friday seeking to compel Apple Inc to comply with a judge’s order to unlock the encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters, portraying the tech giant’s refusal as a “marketing strategy.”

In response, a senior Apple executive, speaking with reporters on condition of anonymity, characterized the Justice Department’s filing as an effort to argue its case in the media before the company has a chance to respond.

The back and forth escalated a showdown between the Obama administration and Silicon Valley over security and privacy that ignited earlier this week.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is seeking the tech giant’s help to access shooter Syed Rizwan Farook’s phone by disabling some of its passcode protections. The company so far has pushed back and on Thursday won three extra days ato respond to the order.

Another senior Apple executive said Congress is the right place for a debate over encryption, not a California courtroom.

The executive said Apple was stunned that such a legal request had come from the U.S. government rather than a country with weaker traditions of protecting privacy and civil liberties.

The motion to compel Apple to comply did not carry specific penalties for the company, and the Justice Department declined to comment on what recourse it was willing to seek.

In the order, prosecutors acknowledged that the latest filing was “not legally necessary” since Apple had not yet responded to the initial order.

The clash between Apple and the Justice Department has driven straight to the heart of a long-running debate over how much law enforcement and intelligence officials should be able to monitor digital communications.

A federal court hearing in California has been scheduled for March 22 in the case, according to Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.

The Justice Department said its Friday motion was a response to Apple CEO Tim Cook’s public statement Wednesday, which included a refusal to “hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers.”

“Rather than assist the effort to fully investigate a deadly terrorist attack … Apple has responded by publicly repudiating that order,” prosecutors wrote in the Friday filing.

“Apple’s current refusal to comply with the court’s order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,” prosecutors said.

 

ID CHANGE POSES HURDLE

The two senior Apple executives said the company had worked hard to help investigators and tried multiple avenues including sending engineers with FBI agents to a WiFi network that would recognize the phone and begin an automatic backup if that had been enabled.

They criticized government officials who reset the Apple identification associated with the phone, which closed off the possibility of recovering information from it through that automatic cloud backup.

The government first disclosed the identification change in a footnote to its filing Friday. The Apple executives said that the reset occurred before Apple was consulted. The Justice Department declined to comment on that contention.

The two sides have been on a collision course since Apple and Google began offering default end-to-end encryption on their devices in 2014, a move prompted in part by the surveillance revelations from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

But the Justice Department struggled to find a compelling case where encryption proved to be an insurmountable hurdle for its investigators until the Dec. 2 shooting rampage by Farook and his wife in San Bernardino, California, which killed 14. Authorities believe the couple was inspired by the Islamic State.

Some technology experts and privacy advocates backing Apple suggest Farook’s work phone likely contains little data of value. They have accused the Justice Department of choreographing the case to achieve a broader goal of gaining support for legislation or a legal precedent that would force companies to crack their encryption for investigators.

The case has quickly become a topic in the U.S. presidential race. Republican frontrunner Donald Trump on Friday called for a “boycott” against Apple until the company complied with the court order.

The two Apple executives said they felt in good company, noting that Trump has faulted many other groups and individuals.

 

(Reporting by Julia Edwards, Dustin Volz, and Lisa Richwine; Additional reporting by David Ingram, Dan Levine, Julia Love and Joseph Menn; Editing by Bill Rigby and Cynthia Osterman)

Photo: An Apple logo hangs above the entrance to the Apple store on 5th Avenue in the Manhattan borough of New York City. Mike Segar/Reuters

Privacy Versus Security At Heart Of Apple Phone Decrypt Order

Privacy Versus Security At Heart Of Apple Phone Decrypt Order

By Jim Finkle and Joseph Menn

(Reuters) – A court order demanding that Apple Inc (AAPL.O) help the U.S. government unlock the encrypted iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters is shaping up as a crucial test case of how far the government can go in forcing technology companies to help security and intelligence investigations.

Law enforcement agencies have for years faced off against tech firms and privacy advocates over their ability to monitor digital communications, and the government to date has largely lost the battle.

But the specific circumstances of the San Bernardino case, a young married couple who sympathized with Islamic State militants and killed 14 people and wounded 22 others in a shooting rampage at a holiday party, could give government officials the legal precedent they need to reverse the tide.

A federal judge in Los Angeles on Tuesday ordered Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance” to investigators seeking to read the data on an iPhone 5C that had been used by Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, carried out the shootings.

The government argues that the iPhone is a crucial piece of evidence. But civil liberties groups warn that forcing companies to crack their own encryption endangers the technical integrity of the Internet and threatens not just the privacy of customers but potentially that of citizens of any country.

On Wednesday, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates came out strongly on the side of law enforcement, raising the possibility of another legislative effort to require tech companies to put “backdoors” in their products.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the Department of Justice was asking Apple for access to just one device, a central part of the government’s argument, which Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook has said was “simply not true.”

“They are not asking Apple to redesign its product or to create a new backdoor to one of their products,” Earnest told reporters at a daily briefing.

The Department of Justice stressed in a statement on Wednesday that its request was “narrowly tailored,” and chided Apple. “It is unfortunate that Apple continues to refuse to assist the department in obtaining access to the phone of one of the terrorists involved in a major terror attack on U.S. soil.”

Most technology security experts, including many who have served in government, say technical efforts to provide government access to encrypted devices inevitably degrades security for everyone. It is an argument that has been made since the 1990s, when the government tried and failed to force tech companies to incorporate a special chip into their products for surveillance purposes.

“The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone,” Cook said in a statement on Tuesday. “But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.”

LEGAL FIGHT

Representatives of several other tech companies did not respond to requests for comment on the ruling. Not surprisingly, however, trade groups that count thousands of software companies, smartphone makers and network security firms as members decried the government position, while law enforcement groups backed the Justice Department.

The industry was “committed to working with law enforcement to keep Americans safe” the Software & Information Industry Association said, but in the Apple case, “the government’s position is overbroad and unwise.”

The Computing Technology Industry Association said that if the order was carried out, “it could give the FBI the power to call for some sort of back end to encryption whenever they see fit.”

If the federal judge, Magistrate Sheri Pym, rejects Apple’s arguments, the Cupertino, California-based company can appeal her order to the district court, and then up the chain to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit is known to be pro-privacy. “The government ultimately will have an uphill fight,” said Robert Cattanach, a former Justice Department lawyer who advises companies on cyber security issues.

Farook was assigned the phone by the county health department he worked for, prosecutors said in a court filing on Tuesday. The health department had “given its consent” to authorities to search the device and to Apple to assist investigators in that search, the document said.

San Bernardino County’s top prosecutor, District Attorney Mike Ramos, said Apple’s refusal to unlock the phone was a slap in the face to the victims of the shooting and their families.

“They’d like to know details like any of us in America would like to know. Were there other threats? Were there other individuals involved?” Ramos said in a phone interview.

‘MASTER KEY’

Dan Guido, an expert in hacking operating systems, said that to unlock the phone, the FBI would need to install an update to Apple’s iOS operating system so that investigators could circumvent the security protections, including one that wipes data if an incorrect password is entered too many times.

He said that only Apple can provide that software because the phones will only install updates that are digitally signed with a secret cryptographic key.

“That key is one of the most valuable pieces of data the entire company owns,” he said. “Someone with that key can change all the data on all the iPhones.”

The notion of providing that key is anathema to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online rights group. “Once this master key is created, governments around the world will surely demand that Apple undermine the security of their citizens as well,” the foundation said in a statement.

Lance James, an expert in forensics who is chief scientist with cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint, said Apple could respond to the order without providing crypto keys or specialized tools that could be used to unlock other phones.

Apple technicians could create software that would unlock the phone, allowing the company to create a backup file with all of its contents that they could provide to law enforcement, James said.

American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Alex Abdo said the government’s request risked a “dangerous” precedent. “The Constitution does not permit the government to force companies to hack into their customers’ devices,” he said.

Apple was a topic of discussion on the presidential campaign trail on Wednesday.

Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican Party’s nomination to run in the Nov. 8 election, appearing on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” said, “I agree 100 percent with the courts – in that case, we should open it (the iPhone) up. … We have to use common sense.”

Another Republican candidate, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, called it a “tough issue” that would require government to work closely with the tech industry to find a solution. Rubio said he hoped Apple would voluntarily comply with the court order.

(Additional reporting by Megan Cassella, Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington, Steve Holland; and Dan Levine in San Francisco, Sharon Bernstein in Los Angeles; Writing by Grant McCool; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Jonathan Weber)

Photo: A woman poses in a file photo illustration with an iPhone as she plays Candy Crush in New York February 18, 2014. Video game maker Activision Blizzard Inc said it will buy “Candy Crush Saga” creator King Digital Entertainment for $5.9 billion to strengthen its games portfolio.REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/Files

Rubio Sighting In The Capitol

Rubio Sighting In The Capitol

By Carl Hiaasen, Tribune Content Agencuy

A strange thing happened the other day in Washington, D.C.:

Marco Rubio actually showed up for work.

Without needing Mapquest he found his way to the Senate floor. He even remembered where his seat was.

These days a Rubio sighting in the Capitol is rare, the birdwatcher’s equivalent of spotting a blue-footed booby. Like all senators who’ve run for president, Marco’s been away a lot.

The reason for his recent detour to Washington was to cast a very important vote affecting the security of this country, and of all the Floridians he’s supposed to represent.

The Senate was considering a law to prevent persons on the FBI’s terror watch list from buying explosives or guns. To most Americans, that’s a no-brainer.

Rubio showed up to vote against the bill. Went out of his way to vote against it.

This was only one day after the mass shootings in San Bernardino.

The measure was defeated by the Republican majority, slaves as always to the NRA, which opposed the law. (Rubio isn’t the only GOP senator running for president who’s terrified of the gun lobby — Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham voted against the watch list ban, too.)

In his prime-time speech last week from the Oval Office, President Obama asked: “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon?”

Political cowards can always find an argument. Rubio and others, including Jeb Bush, say they’re concerned about the accuracy of the government’s no-fly list, which is a part of the FBI’s consolidated watch list.

The no-fly database was initiated after 9/11 to stop terrorists from boarding commercial airline flights. In its early years the list included some improbable names, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, the deceased 9/11 hijackers and hundreds of others that shouldn’t have been there.

We don’t know exactly who’s on the no-fly list now, because it’s secret.

Rubio says banning gun sales to everybody that the FBI considers a possible threat would penalize innocent citizens who are mistakenly put on the list. He got this script straight from the NRA.

The real bad guys on the watch list must be laughing their butts off. We won’t let them get on an airplane, but they can stroll into any gun shop and buy an AR-15.

What a country!

According to the General Accounting Office, more than 2,000 persons on the U.S. terror watch list were able to legally purchase firearms between 2004 and 2014. If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will.

It’s a small comfort that the FBI can track who among its terror suspects is buying guns. The fact that even one of them can legally obtain assault weapons is outrageous.

Nobody is naive enough to believe that any law can stop aspiring terrorists from arming themselves. The San Bernardino killers weren’t on the watch list, and they obtained their legally purchased assault rifles through a friend. But why make it easier for murderous zealots like these?

Under current laws, even if the radicalized San Bernardino couple had been on the watch list, the FBI could not have legally stopped them from buying guns, ammo or explosive materials as long as they gave their real names. Most Americans, including plenty of Republicans, think that’s nuts.

The very minimum we should do to protect the homeland is prevent these maniacs from buying high-powered weapons over the counter. What other modern nation under threat allows such reckless nonsense?

Since 2007, the government has pushed Congress to prohibit the sale of weapons and explosives to those on the terror watch list. As president, even George W. Bush supported such a ban.

Over and over it gets defeated, led by NRA stooges like Rubio. (He also voted against a bill to have gun-show dealers and online firearms sellers use background checks to identify convicted felons and mentally ill persons).

U.S. intelligence gathering is far from flawless, as we know from 9/11. But what’s the point of making lists of potentially dangerous individuals if law enforcement can’t act on that information to avert future bloodbaths? It’s likely that some of those 2,000-plus persons on the watch list who have bought weapons pose no harm to the public. It’s also likely that some have violence in mind, and these plots can simmer for years.

If the day ever comes when one of those watch-list suspects uses that legally purchased weapon for mass murder, part of the blame will fall on those in Washington who made it so easy.

Just try to find Marco then.

(Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for the Miami Herald. Readers may write to him at: 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132.)

Photo: U.S. Republican presidential candidate and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) arrives at the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Presidential Candidates Forum in Washington, December 3, 2015. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

Muslim Americans Fear Demonization Of Islam After Mass Shooting

Muslim Americans Fear Demonization Of Islam After Mass Shooting

By Ben Klayman

DEARBORN, Mich. (Reuters) – Muslim Americans fear their religion will be demonized and Islamophobia will spread after a young Muslim couple was accused of carrying out one of the bloodiest mass killings in the United States.

Across the country, Muslim Americans responded with shock and outrage after a shooting in which authorities said Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, stormed a holiday party attended by San Bernardino County employees in California on Wednesday, killing 14 people and wounding 21. [nL1N13S0HF]

“I was at the gym yesterday while the shooting was taking place and all the TVs were showing that footage and all I could keep thinking to myself is ‘God, I hope they don’t have any Eastern descent, not just Middle Eastern, anything we’d associate with a Muslim’,” said Adam Hashem, 32, in Dearborn, a Detroit suburb with one of the country’s largest Muslim populations.

“We’re all worried. We’re all concerned,” he said.

It was the deadliest U.S. mass shooting since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre three years ago. While the motivation remained unclear as authorities investigated the attack, details of Farook and Malik began to emerge. Farook was described as a second-generation American born in Illinois and raised by Pakistani parents. Malik was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia until she was introduced to Farook.[nL1N13S0B3]

San Bernardino police said they found pipe bombs and several thousands rounds of ammunition at the residence of the couple, who died in a shoot-out with police.

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Attari Supermarket bustled on Thursday with customers shopping for Middle Eastern products.

“In every culture and in every religion there are bad apples that will spoil the rest of the apples. That has happened toward us,” said Dawod Dawod, a 25-year-old Muslim American, who manages the store that his family has owned for a decade.

Between taking orders over the phone, Dawod said he was concerned that politicians will use the mass shooting as a way to further demonize Muslims. He noted Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s endorsement of the idea of creating a Muslim database. “It’s scary.” he said. “Ninety-nine percent of Muslims are hardworking, good people.”

Muslim community groups condemned the massacre and urged the public not to blame Islam or Muslims.

“The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Americans in repudiating any twisted mindset that would claim to justify such sickening acts of violence,” said Hussam Ayloush, an executive director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Within hours of the shooting, his group had organized a news conference with Los Angeles Muslim leaders and the brother of suspected shooter Malik to condemn the assault. The speed at which they went on live television underlined the depth of concerns in a community already buffeted by a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric this year and increased public scrutiny after the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris that killed 130 people and were claimed by Islamic State militants.

Some Muslims say they have felt singled out during a U.S. presidential race that has tapped a vein of anger and bigotry – from comments by Trump to those by fellow Republican candidate Ben Carson, who said in September Muslims were unfit for the presidency of the United States. There are some 2.8 million Muslims in the country.

“HORRIFIED”

Some Muslims questioned whether this week’s shooting will embolden supporters of Trump, who is current front-runner to be his party’s nominee in the November 2016 election and who has backed the idea of requiring all Muslims living in the United States to register in a special database as a counter-terrorism measure.

Critics have also accused Trump of stirring resentment toward Muslims by asserting that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. That claim has been disputed by public officials.

Faizul Khan, 74, an Imam at the Islamic Society of the Washington Area, said he was “horrified” by the San Bernadino shooting. “Unfortunately people don’t understand that we as Muslims, we basically want to promote what is good and just for the entire humanity.”

He said he feared the shooting would strengthen calls to increase surveillance on mosques.

Achraf Issam, 22, national spokesman for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association in Silver Spring, Maryland, said it makes no more sense to say that Islam led to the San Bernardino shootings than to say Christianity led to an attack on the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado last week by a suspect police have named as Robert Lewis Dear.

“No one should say that because this couple is Muslim that it led them to commit those acts,” he said.

That sentiment was echoed by Sara Nabhan, 20, a junior majoring in biology at the University of Houston who was born in Jordan and came to Texas when she was 2 years old.

“Two people’s actions do not constitute a whole population’s actions,” she said.

Jersey City real-estate agent Magdy Ali, 52 and of Egyptian descent, said he uses the name Alex when working to avoid conflict with people who distrust Islam. He said he expects Trump to use Wednesday’s massacre to push for anti-Muslim measures such as monitoring of U.S. mosques.

“We are in a jam right now,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Ruthy Munoz in Houston, Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee, Ian Simpson in Washington, Mary Wisniewski in Chicago and Barbara Liston in Florida; Writing by Jason Szep; Editing by Frances Kerry)

Photo: File photo of Muslim students holding a prayer before a rally against Islamophobia at San Diego State University in San Diego, California, November 23, 2015. REUTERS/Sandy Huffaker