Tag: syed farook
Apple Lawyer, FBI Director Face Off In Congress On iPhone Encryption

Apple Lawyer, FBI Director Face Off In Congress On iPhone Encryption

By Julia Harte and Julia Edwards

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – FBI Director James Comey told a congressional panel on Tuesday that a final court ruling forcing Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to give the FBI data from an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters would be “potentially precedential” in other cases where the agency might request similar cooperation from technology companies.

The remarks were a slight change to Comey’s statement last week that ordering Apple to unlock the phone was “unlikely to be a trailblazer” for setting a precedent for other cases.

Tuesday’s testimony from Comey and remarks before the same U.S. House Judiciary Committee by Apple’s general counsel, Bruce Sewell, brought to Congress a public fight between Apple and the government over the dueling interests of privacy and security that has so far only been heard in the courts.

On Feb. 16, a federal court in California instructed Apple to write special software to unlock the iPhone 5c used by gunman Rizwan Farook, an order the company is contesting.

Sewell and Comey’s remarks also clarified some areas where the two sides fundamentally disagree. Comey said the tool created for Farook’s iPhone would not work on other models. But Sewell said the tool that Apple was being asked to create would work on any iPhone.

“This is not about the San Bernardino case. This is about the safety and security of every iPhone that is in use today,” Sewell said.

Committee members seized on Comey’s statement that the case could set a legal precedent allowing the agency access to any encrypted device.

“Given… that Congress has explicitly denied you that authority so far, can you appreciate our frustration that this case appears to be little more than an end run around this committee?” asked the panel’s ranking minority member, Michigan Representative John Conyers.

Comey responded that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority, but rather to maintain its ability to obtain electronic information under legal authorities that Congress has already provided.

He also acknowledged that it was a “mistake” for the FBI to have asked San Bernardino County officials to reset the phone’s cloud storage account after it was seized. The decision prevented the device, which was owned by the county, Farook’s employer, from backing up information that the FBI could have read.

Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, shot and killed 14 people and wounded 22 others last Dec. 2 before they were themselves killed in a shootout with police. The government has said the attack was inspired by Islamist militants and the FBI wants to read the phone’s data to investigate any links with militant groups.

Comey told a congressional panel last Thursday that the phone could have “locator services” that would help the agency fill in a gap in its knowledge of the route the couple traveled as they fled.

“We’re missing 19 minutes before they were finally killed by law enforcement,” Comey said. “The answer to that might be on the device.”

A federal judge handed Apple a victory in another phone unlocking case in Brooklyn on Monday, ruling that he did not have the legal authority to order Apple to disable the security of an iPhone that was seized during a drug investigation.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Tuesday at the RSA Cybersecurity conference in San Francisco that she was “disappointed” by the Brooklyn ruling, and rebuffed Apple’s claim that its Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination was being violated.

The Justice Department is “not alleging that [Apple has] done anything wrong,” Lynch said, but is treating the company as a third party holding data valuable to an ongoing investigation.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance testified in support of the FBI on Tuesday, arguing that default device encryption “severely harms” criminal prosecutions at the state level, including in cases in his district involving at least 175 iPhones.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards and Julia Harte; Editing by Bill Rigby and Grant McCool)

Photo: Bruce Sewell, senior vice president and general counsel for Apple Inc., watches as FBI Director James Comey testifies during a House Judiciary hearing on “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy” on Capitol Hill in Washington March 1, 2016. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Exclusive: San Bernardino Victims To Oppose Apple On iPhone Encryption

Exclusive: San Bernardino Victims To Oppose Apple On iPhone Encryption

By Dan Levine

(Reuters) – Some victims of the San Bernardino attack will file a legal brief in support of the U.S. government’s attempt to force Apple Inc to unlock the encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the shooters, a lawyer representing the victims said on Sunday.

Stephen Larson, a former federal judge who is now in private practice, told Reuters that the victims he represents have an interest in the information which goes beyond the Justice Department’s criminal investigation.

“They were targeted by terrorists, and they need to know why, how this could happen,” Larson said.

Larson said he was contacted a week ago by the Justice Department and local prosecutors about representing the victims, prior to the dispute becoming public. He said he will file an amicus brief in court by early March.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the matter on Sunday.

Larson declined to say how many victims he represents. Fourteen people died and 22 others were wounded in the shooting attack by a married couple who were inspired by Islamic State militants and died in a gun battle with police.

Entry into the fray by victims gives the federal government a powerful ally in its fight against Apple, which has cast itself as trying to protect public privacy from overreach by the federal government.

An Apple spokesman declined to comment. In a letter to customers last week, Tim Cook, the company’s chief executive, said: “We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected,” saying that the company has “worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime.”

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey said in a letter released on Sunday night that the agency’s request wasn’t about setting legal precedent, but rather seeking justice for the victims and investigating other possible threats.

“Fourteen people were slaughtered and many more had their lives and bodies ruined. We owe them a thorough and professional investigation under law. That’s what this is,” Comey wrote.

The FBI is seeking the tech company’s help to access shooter Syed Rizwan Farook’s phone by disabling some of its passcode protections. The company so far has pushed back, arguing that such a move would set a dangerous precedent and threaten customer security.

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.

The Justice Department won an order in a Riverside, California federal court on Tuesday against Apple, without the company present in court. Apple is scheduled to file its first legal arguments on Friday, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, who served as a federal prosecutor before being appointed to the bench, has set a hearing on the issue for next month.

Larson once presided over cases in Riverside, and Pym argued cases in Larson’s courtroom several times as a prosecutor while Larson was a judge, he said. Larson returned to private practice in 2009, saying at the time that a judge’s salary was not enough to provide for his seven children.

He said he is representing the San Bernardino victims for free.

(Reporting by Dan Levine in Oakland, California; Additional reporting by Curtis Skinner; Editing by Sue Horton and Mary Milliken)

Photo: Apple iPhones are displayed at an Apple store in Beijing, China, February 17, 2016. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj

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

California Shooters’ Ex-Neighbor Charged With Supporting Terrorists

California Shooters’ Ex-Neighbor Charged With Supporting Terrorists

By Mark Hosenball and Idrees Ali

WASHINGTON/RIVERSIDE, Calif. (Reuters) — A former neighbor accused of supplying assault rifles to the couple who massacred 14 people in San Bernardino, California, appeared in court on Thursday charged with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Enrique Marquez, 24, a friend of Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, who launched the Islamic State-inspired rampage on Dec. 2 with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, 29, also told investigators he and Farook plotted earlier mass casualty attacks, prosecutors said.

U.S. Attorney Eileen Decker said the two men conspired to commit “vicious” assaults on targets including a California community college and a state highway during rush hour.

“Even though these plans were not carried out, Mr. Marquez’s criminal conduct deeply affected San Bernardino… and the entire United States when the guns purchased by Marquez were used to kill 14 innocent people and wound many others,” Decker said in a written statement.

Decker said there was no evidence that Marquez took part in Dec. 2 attack or had prior knowledge of it.

Wearing handcuffs and beige T-shirt, Marquez appeared in federal court in Riverside, California for a brief hearing on Thursday. He did not enter a plea.

The possibility of bail will be discussed on Dec. 21, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for Jan. 4. Marquez faces up to 35 years in prison if convicted on three separate counts.

According to an FBI affidavit, the two men met in 2005 when Marquez became Farook’s neighbor in Riverside, California.

Farook introduced Marquez to radical Islamist ideology, prosecutors said, and by 2011 Marquez was spending most of his time at Farook’s home listening to lectures and watching videos with extremist content.

At that point, the pair began planning gun and bomb attacks, the affidavit said, and Marquez told investigators their targets included the library or cafeteria at Riverside Community College, where they had both been students.

He and Farook also planned to detonate pipe bombs on State Route 91 during afternoon rush hour, and then to shoot at law enforcement and emergency crews as they arrived, according to the affidavit.

Prosecutors said the pair bought guns, ammunition and tactical gear, and Marquez told investigators he agreed to purchase the weapons because “his appearance was Caucasian,” while Farook, the U.S-born son of Pakistani immigrants, “looked Middle Eastern.”

He bought a Smith and Wesson M&P-15 Sport rifle in November 2011 and a DPMS model A-15 rifle in February 2012, each costing about $750, according to the affidavit.

Marquez also purchased explosives, specifically smokeless powder, as part of the pair’s plans “to create bombs and commit mass killings,” the affidavit said.

Early in 2012, the two men continued to prepare by visiting shooting ranges. After that year, prosecutors said, Marquez distanced himself from Farook and ceased plotting with him.

MARQUEZ CALLED 911 AFTER MASSACRE

The FBI affidavit provided more details on how investigators believe Farook and his wife’s rampage unfolded.

According to prosecutors, Farook went to his co-workers’ holiday party and placed a bag containing a pipe bomb on a table, before the couple returned and opened fire. It never went off, but a remote control detonator was found in their car after they were killed in a shootout with police.

The affidavit said Marquez told investigators he and Farook learned to make improvised explosive devices from Inspire Magazine, the official publication of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

Hours after the massacre, the affidavit said, a distressed Marquez called 911 to say he wanted to kill himself, and that Farook had used a weapon bought by Marquez.

“They can trace all the guns back to me,” Marquez told the operator.

He was also charged with defrauding U.S. immigration authorities by entering into a sham marriage with a Russian woman in Farook’s extended family so she could live in the United States, prosecutors said.

Marquez, who had checked himself into a Los Angeles-area psychiatric facility shortly after the shootings, had several connections to Farook and Malik and quickly became a key figure in the investigation of the shootings.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is treating the attack as terrorism, raided his home and questioned him for several days. Sources said Marquez cooperated during their interviews.

In 2014, state records showed, Marquez married a Russian woman who was the sister of Farook’s older brother’s wife. Neighbors said they were surprised to learn he had been married, having never seen him with a woman. Prosecutors say Marquez was paid $200 per month for his role in the fraud.

The FBI said Farook and Malik were supporters of Islamic State, the violent group that has taken over large parts of Syria and Iraq, and that they had discussed martyrdom online before they even met.

Their attack thrust the issues of national security and Islamic State into the U.S. presidential campaign, and it came just weeks after Islamic State-affiliated gunmen and suicide bombers killed 130 people in a series of attacks in Paris.

President Barack Obama is due to travel to San Bernardino on Friday to meet privately with families of the victims.

(Additional reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles, and Julia Edwards, Susan Heavey, Megan Cassella in Washington; Writing by Scott Malone and Daniel Wallis; Editing by Bill Trott and Cynthia Osterman)

Photo: Weapons confiscated from the attack in San Bernardino, California, are shown in this San Bernardino County Sheriff Department handout photo from their Twitter account released to Reuters December 3, 2015. REUTERS/San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department/Handout