美國司法部已經撤回了原本要迫使蘋果(Apple)解鎖一支美國加州San Bernardino恐怖攻擊案槍手所擁有之iPhone的法律訴訟，但如何在正當執法以及隱私權保護之間畫一條界線，是仍未解決的難題。 TITLE: iPhone解鎖案暫告段落 執法vs.隱私保護仍無解
A wide swath of the tech community from AT&T to Twitter backed Apple with amicus briefs in support of its position. Both U.S, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently made the government’s case in public appearances in tech capitals of Austin and San Francisco, respectively.
It’s not clear whether the government accessed the iPhone’s data through a new or existing technique. A representative of the Justice Department was not immediately available for comment.
One DoJ spokesperson was quoted in a story by the New York Times:
“It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law enforcement can obtain crucial digital information to protect national security and public safety, either with cooperation from relevant parties, or through the court system when cooperation fails…[and] we will continue to pursue all available options for this mission, including seeking the cooperation of manufacturers and relying upon the creativity of both the public and private sectors.”
Apple proponents cheered the decision.
“The consensus among credible technical experts has always been that there were multiple ways the FBI could attempt to bypass the phone’s security, and that the government’s goal in its legal fight with Apple was not to access the data on the phone but rather to set a precedent to compel private companies to build backdoors into their products,” said a digital rights group called Fight for the Future in a press statement.
���It couldn’t be clearer that they read the tea leaves, saw they were going to lose both in the court of law and the court of public opinion, and gave up, for now at least,” said Tiffiniy Cheng, co-founder of the group that collected more than 20,000 comments supporting Apple.
Next page: Congress weighs in on the work ahead
Congress weighs in on the work ahead
With the court case over, the industry and government have an opportunity to hammer out best practices for balancing law enforcement and privacy in a more collaborative forum. However, it’s not clear just how or when that might occur.
The U.S. House held a hearing earlier this month with both sides to air their differences. In an exchange below one representative took Apple’s chief counsel to task for failing to recommend a solution.
“When are we going to hear what you do like? The FBI provided policy suggestions. All you have been doing is saying, ‘no, no, no,” said Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI).
Last week the House created an encryption working group to examine legal and policy issues surrounding encryption. The group consists of 12 elected representatives including at least three with high-tech heavy districts — Darrell Issa (R-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Suzan DelBene (D-WA).
“The working group will not hold official hearings but will meet with stakeholders and subject matter experts on a regular basis to gather information on the various issues surrounding the encryption debate with the goal of identifying solutions by the end of the year,” said a spokeswoman for the House Judiciary Committee.
Industry groups such as the IEEE-USA and the Semiconductor Industry Association have yet to weigh in on the debate.
U.S Withdraws Apple Case
3/28/2016 08:45 PM EDT
Enforcement vs. privacy debate continueshttp://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329302&print=yes