Apple Refused Court Order To Decrypt iMessages For DOJ; DOJ Debates What To Do
from the warning-shot dept
For many months now, there's been a war of words over the whole "going dark" issue, with the two loudest participants being the DOJ demanding backdoors to encryption, and Apple standing up and speaking out loudly about the importance of encryption. Sooner or later you knew the two would meet in a legal situation -- and now it's happened, with Apple clearly winning round one. The NY Times is reporting that the DOJ obtained a court order earlier this summer, demanding that Apple hand over decrypted iMessage messages (in real time) for an investigation. Apple, apparently, told the DOJ that those messages are encrypted, and it has no way to comply with the order. This is exactly the scenario that everyone's been chattering about for the past year. And apparently, people inside the DOJ are debating what to do about it:The case, coming after several others in which similar requests were rebuffed, prompted some senior Justice Department and F.B.I. officials to advocate taking Apple to court, several current and former law enforcement officials said.However, the article notes that any plans to take Apple to court have "been shelved for now." The rest of the article focuses on a somewhat related situation that we've discussed in the past, involving Microsoft refusing to comply with a DOJ subpoena to hand over emails that are stored on an Irish server. The issue in that case is not about encryption, so much as jurisdiction and the differences between a warrant and a subpoena. That case heads back to court this week. However, the issue about encryption and demands to decrypt communications or stored data will continue for quite some time.
The article notes that Apple did turn over some information, which the DOJ took as a sign of good faith:
In the drug and gun investigation this summer, Apple eventually turned over some stored iCloud messages. While they were not the real-time texts the government most wanted, officials said they saw it as a sign of cooperation.Of course, the major difference here is that the iMessages are encrypted end-to-end, while data stored in iCloud is not, meaning that Apple actually has access to that content. Many have pointed out that in most cases, the important information that the DOJ will want is probably backed up in iCloud anyway, so perhaps that keeps the DOJ from actually going after Apple for the time being. But, still, it is noteworthy that a clash has already happened. Sooner or later, assuming Apple doesn't give in to the backdoor demands, the DOJ is likely to take someone to court over this... Perhaps it's just waiting for a company with pockets not quite as deep as Apple's.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, imessages
Companies: apple, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
When it happens we must join forces and provide very deep pockets to the company that finds itself in the receiving end of the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DOJ acting the part of the bully we all know them to be, will certainly wait for an easier target to go after.
If the DOJ thought they had a real case against Apple that they believed could be won, then they should take on Apple and let the case be settled on it's merits, and not on who they can steamroll.
When the time comes for a smaller company to stand up to the DOJ, I hope everyone capable will help provide financial assistance so the bullies will be put in their place.
The government is out of control, and the ignoramuses in charge are hellbent on stripping away the small remaining privacies we have left.
We must not allow that to happen. In this case, it would be wise to "think of the children" and the world they will be forced to live in if the government has its way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, to be fair that is the exact goal of the electorate system written into the Constitution: to keep the government out of control of the hicks in the backwaters.
Arguably, the voting system has not kept up with the changed voter profile. So the Constitution warrants some updates towards more direct democratic means here.
However, the Constitution never intended the government to slip out of accountability, and that's what has been happening in the last decades.
The stuff Nixon was sent packing for is peanuts and privilege in today's political landscape. And that's indeed a development that the Constitution does not stand for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
#1. People should be taught what serving on a Jury means as a citizen! A lot of people treat it as a burden to be artfully avoided, when in fact it is your MOST POWERFUL VOTE! There a well informed citizenry can completely annihilate any foul play by the government, but a lot of forces has gone into the effort of keeping people stupid.
#2. WE should be the ones ensuring accountability, but instead we bicker over left vs right, north vs south, and repuke vs demtard! Both sides give their own a pass for what they would be screaming about from the other side.
Bush damaged American Freedoms (DHS/TSA) more than a lot of people realize/admit and Obama instead, of undoing the damage, has started cutting into Americas throat with the knife Bush put there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not access. Real-time access! That means they already have real-time access to everything else, and not just plain-text but also HTTPS communications. That's what I get from it. It probably wouldn't be too hard considering DoD has a root certificate in Apple's root store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This statement is precisely why I won't use any company's "cloud" service.
What's the fucking point in encryption when the data stored removes it, allowing companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft to freely hand it over.
Rhetorical question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Barring that, encrypting something strongly & putting on Amazon S3 or Google Drive is probably as safe as having it on your internet connected machine.... Maybe safer as it's likely harder to get into the physical machines in a datacenter than it is to get into your house...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stored data
And if you fail to do BOTH then you're just blowing smoke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cloudy origins
I may be old'n'grey but I remember that companies were doing this - sort of - in the mid-to-late 70's. GE at the time had a worldwide data processing network and quite a few companies were doing selected parts of their business there. Not all, by any means, but there were certainly more than a few mission-critical applications (financial services mostly) that were not done in-house, and that were run on "someone else's servers".
It was groundbreaking for its time. Pity that GE squandered it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So if the Copy Cloud encryption is not as secure as they claim I have an extra level of encryption that only I control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's pretty short sited of the government but given the way they've been acting, who can blame corporations for moving?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a court in the US can order a multinational company to violate the laws of another country in order to disclose data on a server located in that other country, another country could also do it.
Does Microsoft supply any products to any part of the US government? Is there any confidential or even top secret information on those Microsoft systems? What if a foreign court, in France to arbitrarily pick a country, issued a court order demanding Microsoft turn over that top secret data to the French government?
If a US court can compel obedience with a court order of that nature, then Microsoft could also be compelled to obey such an order that harms the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a nice little business you've got there, Apple;
(However, since it's election season, perhaps it would be a good time to fork over some serious coin to make sure your interests are protected -- hint, hint.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erroneous title.
If that's considered refusal and there are any repercussions due to an invalid court order, then you know that the DOJ can get anyone imprisoned just by having the judge order the impossible.
Judge to Hillary Clinton: The court orders you to grow 20 years younger, 13 points hotter and 20 points blonder.
Hillary Clinton to Judge: ...
Judge to Hillary Clinton: I find you in contempt of court, 30 years prison sentence.
Hillary Clinton to Judge:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Erroneous title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Erroneous title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Erroneous title.
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Erroneous title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Erroneous title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Erroneous title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The correct response to the DOJ
(to paraphrase the DOJ's seemingly favorite response to a FOIA request)
... and since they don't have any decrypted iMessages, it would actually be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The correct response to the DOJ
We have >>>ENCRYPTED>>>
The new redacted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The correct response to the DOJ
It wouldn't violate the subpoena, but man would it ever mess with their heads...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The correct response to the DOJ
rueyrueyriuwyeryewrwermnewnrmwenrwejbfjfk jdsfjnsdfndfkjsmnc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile in the EU
The argument they use is that the only choice they'd have is to either break EU or US law.
So while I do think it's great they stand up for the US costumer it would be nice if they did the same world wide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the beauty of the situation.
If the system actually is designed to use end-to-end encryption, with the keys handled by the client directly, then Apple isn't being obstinate.
No court can order someone to do something they can't actually do. It's a fruitless as demanding Apple produce voice recordings of , or turn over a mated pair of unicorns to the DOJ. Not possible (probably).
The best the government could do is to outlaw further production of the communications network, or in the extreme force Apple to turn off the existing system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's the beauty of the situation.
Except that are obstinately refusing to use their position make their OS give them the user keys.
/FBI Logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's the beauty of the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's the beauty of the situation.
You greatly overestimate the technological knowledge of the vast majority of judges. All the DOJ has to do is find one dumb enough that all that 'encryption' stuff is beyond them, and you can be sure they absolutely will order Apple or some other company to do something impossible, simply because they don't know that it is impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft subpeona will be warrent
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/us-claim-on-the-worlds-servers-at-a-crossroads/
If the DoJ wins the case then the US will officaly rule internet world. In case the DoJ wins local law won't mean anything. By that measure other countries might be allowed to request information about US users. You post a picture that some Gov/country doesn't like? Well you better hope the US doesnt have an extradition treaty with them or you might end up in jail.
And I'm not talking about a nice 24/7 solitary, no vists jail that violates human rights... no I mean the kind you get visitors and cellmates. Those really ugly 3rd world prisons everyone fears!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson.
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine
"Today the nations of the world may be divided into two classes - the nations in which the government fears the people, and the nations in which the people fear the government." Amos R. E. Pinochet
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." Voltaire
"In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." Thich Nhat Hanh
"Too bad all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair." George Burns
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis
"There is not enough jails, not enough policemen, not enough courts to enforce a law not supported by the people." Hubert Humphrey
So what in heavens name happened?
Uncle Sam has fallen and he can't get up.
(Quotes from Hillwatch.com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chattel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that would look just like the DoD/DoJ/NSA redacted documents do - a header follower by a lot of black lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After a few senior official are shuffling round the exercise yard for a while maybe they will start to act their age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do you supposed they asked for it then? Just trying to get Apple in trouble for some reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are trying to attack companies that allow encryption without their golden key through manipulation of the courts through lies, damned lies, and double dumb-ass lies.
In other words, standard operating procedure for the Executive branch. Whatever it takes to get what they want, to hell with the law, it doesn't apply to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"We knew our request wasn't possible, but we dragged Apple to court and forced them to pay legal fees to fight it regardless. Unless you want to suffer a similar fate, you'd best make sure that you can hand over what we want, when we ask for it, because as we've just shown, we will take it to court if we have to, even if we know our demand is impossible."
Alternatively, they could be hoping to use it as an example of another sort.
"Look, even when we went through all the steps, they still refused to give us what we asked for, claiming it 'wasn't possible'. Clearly encryption is indeed posing a real obstruction to law enforcement efforts, and needs to be careful controlled so that this sort of thing doesn't happen in the future."
And the third option of course is that they really didn't realize that they were asking for the impossible, being completely clueless about encryption, but I have a hard time believing that it reached the point of a lawsuit without a single person in the DOJ realizing this, so I rather doubt this is the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm surprised law enforcement even bothers looking at message content anymore. That's the old, outdated, method of investigation.
Now-a-days, we kill and arrest people based solely on metadata.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
beauty tips
[ link to this | view in chronology ]