Amazon's Fire OS 5 came out in September, but only now is it being discovered that the operating system no longer supports local encryption (which makes data accessible only with a passcode or key). Concerns have arisen as a result, given Amazon just filed a brief supporting Apple's defense of encryption.
Fire OS is built on Android's open-source code, which has offered local encryption for years. Fire OS 5 doesn't support the feature it turns out, and Amazon's statement on why doesn't help clear matters up much.
Yesterday, Twitter, Reddit, and 15 other tech companies collectively filed an amicus brief in support of Apple and its defense of smartphone encryption. For reason unclear, other giants like Microsoft and Facebook -- which have publicly announced their support -- were not included. However, they have filed their own separate brief with the same goal.
Microsoft President and CLO Brad Smith writes in a blog post of the case, "The fact that we're discussing the All Writs Act across the country is a telling indication of the urgent need to update antiquated rules that govern digital technology and privacy. If we are to protect personal privacy and keep people safe, 21st century technology must be governed by 21st century legislation. What's needed are modern laws passed by our elected representatives in Congress, after a well-informed, transparent, and public debate."
Not all figures within the US government oppose encryption, today shows.
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter made his position on the matter clear today at the RSA 2016 security conference, stating, "I'm not a believer in backdoors. It's not realistic and it's not technically accurate," later continuing, "[The Department of Defense is] not in the executive branch seeking legislation of this kind. I don't think writing a law without an exploration of all the technical solutions out there [is a good idea]."
He also isn't a fan of implementing "a law written by people [without tech expertise] or written in an atmosphere of anger and grief" and feels that one case shouldn't "drive the solution."
"We have to innovate our way to a sensible result," he finished.
A landmark decision has been reached in the ongoing data encryption war. A US magistrate judge in New York, presiding over a drug trafficking case, has ruled Apple cannot be forced to unlock an iPhone by the US government, which has been using the more than 100 year-old All Writs Act (AWA) as part of its argument. While this doesn't directly involve the bigger San Bernardino terrorism case, it's a big win for Apple and smartphone users in general who support their right to encryption, and will certainly help its argument in that case.
"The established rules for interpreting a statute's text constrain me to reject the government's interpretation that the AWA empowers a court to grant any relief not outright prohibited by law," magistrate Judge James Orenstein stated in his order.
Apple today asked a judge to throw out the order requiring it to hack the phone of an attacker in the San Bernardino case and followed it up with a request of its own: that its peers stand behind it to fight for privacy.
That's happened with Microsoft, whose President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith declared in a congressional hearing yesterday his company's "wholehearted" support of Apple's position, and that it would file an amicus brief next week to that end. (An amicus brief is a filing that allows those not directly involved in a case to have their say in it.)
Sources close to the company and security experts are saying Apple is currently working on upgrading its iPhone security measures, which would shield them from potential win by the government in the ongoing encryption war. It's said they've been working on it since before the San Bernardino attack.
The new security would be configured in such a way that a backdoor couldn't be created for it at the government's request (as is currently the case). Specifically, it addresses the vulnerability introduced by the troubleshooting system that allows Apple to update system software without a password. Once the new security in place, the government could request all it likes: Apple wouldn't be able to oblige even if it wanted to.
Experts believe Apple will be able to go through with it. Should the government win the fight, it's expected a new round of court battles would begin, at which point Apple may introduce yet more security measures, and round and round we go. In other words, Apple currently has the upper hand and will for the foreseeable future, barring Congress involvement.
Last week, Facebook joined the ranks of Google, Twitter, and Apple in publicly supporting one's right to smartphone encryption amidst the San Bernardino terrorist case. This left some to wonder where Microsoft was in all of this, so we inquired with the tech giant, who pointed us to a tweet by Microsoft President and CLO Brad Smith (retweeted by CEO Satya Nadella), indicating it does indeed support encryption (via the Reform Government Surveillance coalition).
The plot has thickened in the San Bernardino terrorist case, as it's been revealed the FBI ordered the Apple ID password on the attacker's phone be reset. The order has given rise to questions about the FBI's competence.
It started when Apple urged authorities to plug the phone of the attacker (Syed Farook) into an outlet in his office, thus triggering an iCloud backup and providing access to the desired data. However, prior to this, the FBI ordered the Apple ID password be reset.
Apple confirmed this in a new FAQ on its website, which addressed the incident as well as other questions that have arisen about the case and the company's stance on encryption.
Tech giants Google, Twitter, and Apple have publicly denounced the FBI's fight to get around phone encryption, favoring the privacy rights of their users instead. Now Facebook is hopping on board, too.
"We will continue to fight aggressively against requirements for companies to weaken the security of their systems," a Facebook spokesperson told Reuters yesterday. "These demands would create a chilly precedent and obstruct companies' efforts to secure their products."
That makes four for four. Microsoft is the biggest tech company to not yet comment on the issue; to that end, we've put in in an inquiry, and will report if we hear back.
Yesterday, Apple CEO Tim Cook published an open letter to the company's customers, explaining why Apple feels so strongly about supporting one's right to data encryption and privacy. Shortly afterward, Google CEO Sundar Pichai chimed in on Twitter, describing the letter as "important" before siding with Cook.
"Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users' privacy," he writes. "We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism. We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders, but that's wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent. [I'm] looking forward to a thoughtful and open discussion on this important issue."
Pichai's public support of Cook's letter could be described as admirable, given it is in direct competition with Apple in the browser and mobile spaces, among others.