In 
Quite unexpectedly, just a day before a US court was to hear the case regarding the unlocking of the iPhone of the deceased shooter in the San Bernadino murder incident last year, the American law enforcement agency Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which was pressing Apple to build a backdoor to access data from the phone—of late through the judicial route—retracted saying it may have found an alternative solution to unlock the gadget.
Since then, it has been reported that Cellebright, a little known provider of mobile forensic software, will help FBI break into the phone.
How exactly it will unlock is anybody’s guess, but for the time being, the debate has shifted to what it could mean for the big encryption debate that was dominating tech and business media in the last two months, ever since Appple CEO Tim Cook publicly held a position that he would contest an order to help FBI unlock the iphone of the accused. (See Tim Cook turns encryption debate to open war).
No surprise, no one is giving a clean chit to FBI. Mind you, the reason for its retraction has not been to allow the community to debate and discuss and build a consensus but because ‘it has found an alternate technical solution’.
Those supporting FBI’s cause, however, see it as a proof of the stand FBI had officially taken—that its request to Apple was restricted to this one case and not a big evil plan to get into the gadgets of citizens at will, as tech companies see it and as Apple CEO Tim Cook has publicly raised apprehensions about. Apple had even released at least a dozen instances of such requests in last six months. The line of argument of those that support FBI position goes something like this. FBI just wanted to investigate this case and went to Apple for help; when the latter did not cooperate and instead decided to fight it legally, FBI had to look for an alternate method and managed to get one now.
Interestingly, FBI’s critics see it exactly the opposite way. Many critics were of the opinion that FBI was not focusing enough to find an alternate solution and its decision to go legal was instead a step to settle the debate once and for all. They see the finding of a third party hacker as a vindication of their position. FBI was hoping to intimidate the tech makers legally but when Cook took a tough stand, it was forced to look for alternatives, argue critics.
For the time, it may seem like a victory for Apple. But is it really? There is an interesting story here that claims that the reason hackers will go to FBI and not Apple is that the latter does not pay them unlike most other tech companies do.
Whether it is finding a more willing tech ally, who would do It for some good bucks or pursuing the case legally—both are combative strategies to get one up on the tech companies. For example, what happens if the third party fails to do it. Or it manages this time but tech companies make it further difficult. How long will FBI go on with hired hackers to fight against tech companies—and why?
All that this latest decision of FBI has done is that it has tried to move from a legal battle to a technical battle. A legal battle would have put the other arms of the government in difficult position. A technical battle would be confined to FBI. That’s a practical takeout from this decision.
But the battle is on nevertheless.
FBI’s action has raised more questions than answers. If law enforcement agencies get into one upmanship in hacking with tech companies, it is hardly the most conducive environment for a broader discussion, let alone building a consensus.
And as far as we Indians are concerned, we must follow it very carefully. As National Cyber Security Coordinator, Dr Gulshan Rai puts it, “That is the country that teaches moral responsibility to the world. Let’s see how it evolves.”
Add new comment