Smartphones have become an almost universal tool for the masses, mainly as a simple gateway to the Internet. Though, in recent years these devices have increasingly become personalized and full of even more intimate data. Some would argue that our smartphones are extensions of ourselves because they could function as an "extended mind" and will start becoming a hub for internet connected devices that could leave behind real-time footprints of their users. The design of the devices themselves have shifted to reflect this closer intimacy between users and their devices. New iPhones have fingerprint scanners so that people can't just look over your shoulder while you type your password and iOS has tighter rules on when the iPhone requires a passcode if the fingerprint scanner is enabled. A fairly recent change to iOS security made the phone encrypt itself with the user's passcode, but it had no noticeable affect on user experience so most people didn't know it happened.
The FBI has been investigating the shooting in San Bernardino, CA, and the Justice Department filed a motion to compel Apple to create a version of iOS that would allow the FBI to guess your device password with unlimited tries, and electronically so they didn't need to physically type each guess in. It is highly curious that the Justice Department hasn't filed any motions compelling gun manufacturers to prevent terrorist attacks. Instead the FBI has framed the issue as a clash between national security and Apple's "marketing strategy", trying to force a very narrow narrative on an issue that will affect the rights of over 44 million American iPhone users.
Last Spring I was able to take a class on Network and Computer Security taught by Ronald Rivest, an inventor of RSA encryption. For my final project I decided to hack my own iPhone. I was ran iOS 8 at the time, but as every version of iOS has come out, hackers have been able to root, or jailbreak, the phone, allowing users to access tools that were reserved for the operating system itself. For most people who jailbreak their phone, this means they can download unsanctioned-by-Apple utilities to modify their phone in unique ways. Popular modifications include changing the look of default apps and adding ones that are outside Apple's App Store.
For a hacker, jailbreaking means I can run programs that have rules outside the closed wall of "iPhone Apps". So I set up a connection between my laptop and phone used a utility called cycript to cause havoc on my iPhone. I would sit on my laptop while someone used my phone, and could copy passwords out of text as someone typed. I could add buttons to do random things, or make every outgoing connection forward the data to another service, effectively spying on every piece of network traffic on my phone (unless traffic itself was encrypted). It was actually frightening how easy it was to do this, and I no longer jailbreak my phone because of this outcome.
It is important to note that it was ultimately my choice to weaken my phone's security, and I was only able to make this choice because I knew my phone's passcode lock, or owned my fingerprint. For someone to make their phone vulnerable to this type of attack, they would need to unlock their phone. In a way unlocking becomes a form of contract, a way of saying that I sanction what happens on this device and with my information. I believe that our government must protect that contract in order for us to continue safely using the internet.
Examining the confrontation as one between two specific actors, the FBI and Apple, it does make sense for the FBI to want Apple to do this if we view fighting terrorism as their sole incentive. In our readings we learned of Walmart and how they increased efficiency using surveillance. The FBI wants an easy way to break into iPhones. It doesn't actually matter whether they are already able to do it, because Apple could very easily change their algorithms and it would cost the FBI money to crack it again. Also, they would need to develop this cracking technology for other operating systems too, further adding to their operating costs. The only reason the FBI would want Apple to unlock this specific iPhone is for precedent to do it in the future, to place the financial burden on tech companies to develop tools to hack users' devices when the investigators need it (much like the government can ask tech companies for your information stored on servers the company owns, only this is the phone the user owns).
In a way this case comes to the public view as activism on the FBI's part. There are many iPhones that the FBI would want unencrypted, but they chose to act on this one specifically to start the public dialogue. This conflict deals with terrorism, an idea that is historically frightening to the US, which could cause people to sympathize with the FBI.
In class we looked at a website called littlesis.org that allowed users to map out relationships between powerful people. I was searching around for maps concerning this case and found an interesting map called Chertoff fed agency map 1. Looking at the map, you see that the group has many members positioned across various Defense and Intelligence agencies. If you go to the Chertoff Group website, you are greeted with media concerning cybersecurity. It's articles page links to a Wall Street Journal article where a former head of the CIA and NSA says, "Look, your armed forces view cyber as a domain. Land, sea, air, space, cyber." If our armed forces view cyber as a domain, then why does this group support legislation that prevents citizens from protecting themselves in this domain?
activismCivic mediagovernmenttechnology solutions