.jpg?rect=0%2C75%2C3500%2C1969&auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
The US government’s surprise claim that it may have found an alternate way to break into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone indicates “perjury”, according to former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
A much-anticipated court hearing on the federal government’s effort to force Apple to unlock the iPhone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terror attack was abruptly vacated on Monday after the FBI revealed it may have a way to access data without the company’s help but with the assistance of a “third party”.
Snowden, currently in Russia on temporary asylum, made some quick but important observations on Twitter.
The government had insisted until Monday that it had no way to access the phone used by Rizwan Farook, one of the two killers in the December massacre in San Bernardino, California, except to force Apple to write new software that would disable the password protection.
The Justice Department last month obtained a court order directing Apple to create that software, but Apple fought back, arguing that the order is an overreach by the government and would undermine computer security for everyone.
The announcement on Monday that an unnamed third party had presented a way of breaking into the phone on Sunday – just two days before the hearing and after weeks of heated back-and-forth in court filings – drew skepticism from many in the tech community who have insisted that there were other ways to get into the phone.
Snowden is not the only one talking about this crucial change of tactic by the US government.
From a purely technical perspective, one of the most fragile parts of the government’s case is the claim that Apple’s help is required to unlock the phone. Matt Blaze, a professor and computer security expert at the University of Pennsylvania.Matt Blaze, Professor & Computer Security Expert, University of Pennsylvania
Nate Cardozo, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group backing Apple, said the San Bernardino case was the “hand-chosen test case” for the government to establish its authority to access electronic information by whatever means necessary.
In that context, he said, the last-minute discovery of a possible solution and the cancellation of the hearing is “suspicious,” and suggests the government might be worried about losing and setting a bad precedent.
(With Reuters inputs.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)