Tag Archives: Apple

Apple, Google Products Target of Court Order

Apple Logo inside Corporate offices

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday said it had identified 63 cases across the U.S. in which the federal government asked for a court order compelling Apple Inc or Google to help access devices seized during investigations.

The cases predominantly arise out of investigations into drug crimes, the ACLU said, adding that the data indicate such government requests have become “quite ordinary.”

Representatives for the Justice Department and Apple declined to comment.

A spokesman for Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc, declined to say how frequently it has cooperated with All Writs Act requests or orders, and how often it has contested them.

The Justice Department previously disclosed that Apple has received 70 court orders requiring it to provide assistance since 2008, which it obeyed without objection.

However, last October Apple contested a Justice Department demand for assistance in a Brooklyn drug case. Since then, Apple has objected to several other government requests for help accessing devices across the country, the company said in a court filing last month.

A U.S. judge in Brooklyn agreed with Apple and ruled that Congress has not authorized the government to ask for the help it demanded of the company. The Justice Department has appealed that ruling.

The ACLU report comes after the Justice Department withdrew a request for Apple’s assistance in California, saying on Monday it had succeeded in unlocking an iPhone used by one of the shooters involved in a rampage in San Bernardino in December without Apple’s help.

Other cases involving government requests for Apple’s help are still pending.

A variety of Apple and Google products have been targeted by court orders, according to the ACLU report. In one, an Apple iPhone 5 was seized by a man arrested in 2013 for importing methamphetamine from Mexico.

A California court ordered Apple to help the Justice Department bypass the passcode and copy data onto an external hard drive. The order does not specify which operating system was running on the phone.

(Reporting by Dan Levine)

U.S. says it may not need Apple to open San Bernardino iPhone

(Reuters) – U.S. prosecutors said Monday that a “third party” had presented a possible method for opening an encrypted iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, a development that could bring an abrupt end to the high-stakes legal showdown between the government and Apple Inc.

A federal judge in Riverside, California, late Monday agreed to the government’s request to postpone a hearing scheduled for Tuesday so that the FBI could try the newly discovered technique. The Justice Department said it would update the court on April 5.

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 has 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.

“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,” said Matt Blaze, a professor and computer security expert at the University of Pennsylvania. “Many in the technical community have been skeptical that this is true, especially given the government’s considerable resources.”

Former prosecutors and lawyers supporting Apple said the move suggested that the Justice Department feared it would lose the legal battle, or at minimum would be forced to admit that it had not tried every other way to get into the phone.

In a statement, the Justice Department said its only interest has always been gaining access to the information on the phone and that it had continued to explore alternatives even as litigation began. It offered no details on the new technique except that it came from a non-governmental third party, but said it was “cautiously optimistic” it would work.

“That is why we asked the court to give us some time to explore this option,” a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Melanie R. Newman, said. “If this solution works, it will allow us to search the phone and continue our investigation into the terrorist attack that killed 14 people and wounded 22 people.”

It would also likely end the case without a legal showdown that many had expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

An Apple executive told reporters on a press call that the company knew nothing about the Justice Department’s possible method for getting into the phone, and that the government never gave any indication that it was continuing to search for such solutions.

The executive characterized the Justice Department’s admission Monday that it never stopped pursuing ways to open the phone as a sharp contrast with its insistence in court filings that only Apple possessed the means to do so.

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.

But George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department computer crime prosecutor, said the government was likely only postponing the fight.

“The problem is not going away, it’s just been delayed for a year or two,” he said.

Apple said that if the government was successful in getting into the phone, which might involve taking advantage of previously undiscovered vulnerabilities, it hoped officials would share information on how they did so. But if the government drops the case it would be under no obligation to provide information to Apple.

In opposing the court order, Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, and his allies have argued that it would be unprecedented to force a company to develop a new product to assist a government investigation, and that other law enforcement agencies around the world would rapidly demand similar services.

Law enforcement officials, led by Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, have countered that access to phones and other devices is crucial for intelligence work and criminal investigations.

The government and the tech industry have clashed for years over similar issues, and Congress has been unable to pass legislation to address the impasse.

(Reporting by Joseph Menn, additional reporting by Mari Saito; Editing by Leslie Adler and Andrew Hay)

Apple fight could escalate with demand for ‘source code’

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The latest filing in the legal war between the planet’s most powerful government and its most valuable company gave one indication of how the high-stakes confrontation could escalate even further.

In what observers of the case called a carefully calibrated threat, the U.S. Justice Department last week suggested that it would be willing to demand that Apple turn over the “source code” that underlies its products as well as the so-called “signing key” that validates software as coming from Apple.

Together, those two things would give the government the power to develop its own spying software and trick any iPhone into installing it. Eventually, anyone using an Apple device would be unable to tell whether they were using the real thing or a version that had been altered by officials to be used as a spy tool.

Technology and security experts said that if the U.S. government was able to obtain Apple’s source code with a conventional court order, other governments would demand equal rights to do the same thing.

“We think that would be pretty terrible,” said Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology.

The battle between Apple and the U.S Justice Department has been raging since the government in February obtained a court order demanding that Apple write new software to help law enforcement officials unlock an iPhone associated with one of the shooters in the December attack in San Bernardino, California that killed 14 people.

Apple is fighting the order, arguing that complying with the request would weaken the security of all iPhones and create an open-ended precedent for judges to make demands of private companies.

The Justice Department’s comments about source code and signing keys came in a footnote to a filing last week in which it rejected Apple’s arguments. Apple’s response to the DOJ brief is expected on Tuesday.

Justice Department lawyers said in the brief that they had refrained from pursuing the iOS source code and signing key because they thought “such a request would be less palatable to Apple. If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labor by Apple.”

The footnote evoked what some lawyers familiar with the case call a “nuclear option,” seeking the power to demand and use the most prized assets of lucrative technology companies.

A person close to the government’s side told Reuters that the Justice Department does not intend to press the argument that it could seize the company’s code, and someone on Apple’s side said the company isn’t worried enough to counter the veiled threat in its brief due Tuesday.

But many people expect the iPhone matter to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and thus even fallback legal strategies are drawing close scrutiny.

ODDS OF SUCCESS UNCLEAR

There is little clarity on whether a government demand for source code would succeed.

Perhaps the closest parallel was in a case filed by federal prosecutors against Lavabit LLC, a privacy-oriented email service used by Edward Snowden. In trying to recover Snowden’s unencrypted mail from the company, which did not keep Snowden’s cryptographic key, the Justice Department got a court order forcing the company to turn over another key instead, one that would allow officials to impersonate the company’s website and intercept all interactions with its users.

“Lavabit must provide any and all information necessary to decrypt the content, including, but not limited to public and private keys and algorithms,” the lower court ruled.

Lavabit shut down rather than comply. But company lawyer Jesse Binnall said the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower ruling, did so on procedural grounds, so that the Justice Department’s win would not influence much elsewhere.

In any case, full source code would be even more valuable than the traffic key in the Lavabit case, and the industry would go to extreme lengths to fight for it, Binnall said.

“That really is the keys to the kingdom,” Binnall said.

Source code is sometimes inspected during lawsuits over intellectual property, and the Justice Department noted that Apple won permission to review some of rival Samsung’s <005930.KS> code in one such case. In that case and similar battles, the code is produced with strict rules to prevent copying.

No cases brought by the government have led to that sort of code production, or at least none that have come to light.

But intelligence agencies operate under different rules and have wide latitude overseas. Some advanced espionage programs attributed to the United States used digital certificates that were stolen from Taiwanese companies, though not full programs.

U.S. software code may have been sought in other cases, such as investigations relying on the Patriot Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which applies within American borders.

Several people who have argued before the special FISA court or are familiar with some of its cases say they know of no time that the government has sought source code.

(Reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Cynthia Osterman)

Mac ransomware caught before large number of computers infected

(Reuters) – The first known ransomware attack on Apple Inc’s Mac computers, which was discovered over the weekend, was downloaded more than 6,000 times before the threat was contained, according to a developer whose product was tainted with the malicious software.

Hackers infected Macs with the “KeRanger” ransomware through a tainted copy of Transmission, a popular program for transferring data through the BitTorrent peer-to-peer file sharing network.

So-called ransomware is a type of malicious software that restricts access to a computer system in some way and demands the user pay a ransom to the malware operators to remove the restriction.

KeRanger, which locks data on Macs so users cannot access it, was downloaded about 6,500 times before Apple and developers were able to thwart the threat, said John Clay, a representative for the open-source Transmission project.

That is small compared to the number of ransomware attacks on computers running Microsoft Corp’s Windows operating system. Cyber security firm Symantec Corp observed some 8.8 million attacks in 2014 alone.

Still, cyber security experts said they expect to see more attacks on Macs as the KeRanger hackers and other groups look for new ways to infect Mac computers.

“It’s a small number but these things always start small and ramp up huge,” said Fidelis Cybersecurity threat systems manager John Bambenek. “There’s a lot of Mac users out there and a lot of money to be made.”

Symantec, which sells anti-virus software for Macs, warned on its blog that “Mac users should not be complacent.” The post offered tips on protecting against ransomware.

The Transmission project provided few details about how the attack was launched.

“The normal disk image (was) replaced by the compromised one” after the project’s main server was hacked, said Clay.

He added that “security on the server has since been increased” and that the group was in “frequent contact” with Apple as well as Palo Alto Networks, which discovered the ransomware on Friday and immediately notified Apple and Transmission.

An Apple representative said the company quickly took steps over the weekend to prevent further infections by revoking a digital certificate that enabled the rogue software to install on Macs.

Transmission responded by removing the malicious 2.90 version of its software from its website. On Sunday, it released version 2.92, which its website says automatically removes the ransomware from infected Macs.

Forbes earlier reported on the number of KeRanger downloads, citing Clay.

(Reporting by Jim Finkle; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Bill Rigby)

Apple users targeted in first known Mac ransomware campaign

BOSTON (Reuters) – Apple Inc customers were targeted by hackers over the weekend in the first campaign against Macintosh computers using a pernicious type of software known as ransomware, researchers with Palo Alto Networks Inc told Reuters on Sunday.

Ransomware, one of the fastest-growing types of cyber threats, encrypts data on infected machines, then typically asks users to pay ransoms in hard-to-trace digital currencies to get an electronic key so they can retrieve their data.

Security experts estimate that ransoms total hundreds of millions of dollars a year from such cyber criminals, who typically target users of Microsoft Corp’s Windows operating system.

Palo Alto Threat Intelligence Director Ryan Olson said the “KeRanger” malware, which appeared on Friday, was the first functioning ransomware attacking Apple’s Mac computers.

“This is the first one in the wild that is definitely functional, encrypts your files and seeks a ransom,” Olson said in a telephone interview.

Hackers infected Macs through a tainted copy of a popular program known as Transmission, which is used to transfer data through the BitTorrent peer-to-peer file sharing network, Palo Alto said on a blog posted on Sunday afternoon.

When users downloaded version 2.90 of Transmission, which was released on Friday, their Macs were infected with the ransomware, the blog said.

An Apple representative said the company had taken steps over the weekend to prevent further infections by revoking a digital certificate that enabled the rogue software to install on Macs. The representative declined to provide other details.

Transmission responded by removing the malicious version of its software from its website. On Sunday it released a version that its website said automatically removes the ransomware from infected Macs.

The website advised Transmission users to immediately install the new update, version 2.92, if they suspected they might be infected.

Palo Alto said on its blog that KeRanger is programmed to stay quiet for three days after infecting a computer, then connect to the attacker’s server and start encrypting files so they cannot be accessed.

After encryption is completed, KeRanger demands a ransom of 1 bitcoin, or about $400, the blog said.

Olson, the Palo Alto threat intelligence director, said that the victims whose machines were compromised but not cleaned up could start losing access to data on Monday, which is three days after the virus was loaded onto Transmission’s site.

Representatives with Transmission could not be reached for comment.

(Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe and Sandra Maler)

U.S. tech companies unite behind Apple ahead of iPhone encryption ruling

(Reuters) – Alphabet Inc’s Google, Facebook Inc, Microsoft Corp and several other Internet and technology companies will file a joint legal brief on Thursday asking a judge to support Apple Inc in its encryption battle with the U.S. government, sources familiar with the companies’ plans said.

The effort is a rare display of unity and support for the iPhone maker from companies which are competitors in many areas, and shows the breadth of Silicon Valley’s opposition to the government’s anti-encryption effort.

The fight between Apple and the government became public last month when the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained a court order requiring Apple to write new software and take other measures to disable passcode protection and allow access to an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters in December.

Apple has pushed back, arguing that such a move would set a dangerous precedent and threaten customer security. The clash has intensified a long-running debate over how much law enforcement and intelligence officials should be able to monitor digital communications.

The group of tech companies plans to file what is known as an amicus brief – a form of comment from outside groups common in complex cases – to the Riverside, California, federal judge Sheri Pym. She will rule on Apple’s appeal of a court order that would force it to create software to unlock the iPhone.

The companies will contest government arguments that the All Writs Act, a broad 1789 law that enables judges to require actions necessary to enforce their own orders, compels Apple to comply with its request.

In their joint brief, the tech companies will say that Congress passed the All Writs Act before the invention of the light bulb, and that it goes too far to contend that the law can be used to force engineers to disable security protections, according to a source familiar with their arguments.

Google, Facebook and others also appear to be tailoring their arguments specifically to a U.S. Supreme Court audience, where the case may end up. The brief will highlight a unanimous 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case which said law enforcement needs warrants to access smartphones snared in an arrest, the source said.

That opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, united the Supreme Court’s liberal and conservative factions.

Briefs are also expected in support of the government.

Stephen Larson, a former federal judge, told Reuters last week that he is working on a brief with victims of the San Bernardino shooting who want the FBI to be able to access the data on the phone used by Rizwan Farook. “They were targeted by terrorists, and they need to know why, how this could happen,” Larson said.

Several other tech companies are joining Google, Facebook and Microsoft.

Mozilla, maker of the Firefox web browser, said it was participating, along with online planning tool maker Evernote and messaging app firms Snapchat and WhatsApp. Bookmarking and social media site Pinterest and online storage firm Dropbox are also participating.

“We stand against the use of broad authorities to undermine the security of a company’s products,” Dropbox General Counsel Ramsey Homsany said in a statement.

A separate group including Twitter Inc, eBay Inc, LinkedIn Corp and more than a dozen other tech firms filed a brief with the court in support of Apple on Thursday. AT&T Inc filed its own brief.

Networking leader Cisco Systems Inc said it expected to address the court on Apple’s behalf, but did not say whether it was joining with the large group of companies.

Semiconductor maker Intel Corp plans to file a brief of its own in support of Apple, said Chris Young, senior vice president and general manager for Intel Security Group.

“We believe that tech companies need to have the ability to build and design their products as needed, and that means that we can’t have the government mandating how we build and design our products,” Young said in an interview.

The Stanford Law School for Internet and Society filed a separate brief on Thursday morning on behalf of a group of well-known experts on iPhone security and encryption, including Charlie Miller, Dino Dai Zovi, Bruce Schneier and Jonathan Zdziarski.

Privacy advocacy groups the American Civil Liberties Union, Access Now and the Wickr Foundation filed briefs on Wednesday in support of Apple before Thursday’s deadline set by Pym.

Salihin Kondoker, whose wife Anies Kondoker was injured in the San Bernardino attack, also wrote on Apple’s behalf, saying he shared the company’s fear that the software the government wants Apple to create to unlock the phone could be used to break into millions of other phones.

“I believe privacy is important and Apple should stay firm in their decision,” the letter said. “Neither I, nor my wife, want to raise our children in a world where privacy is the tradeoff for security.”

Law enforcement officials have said that Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were inspired by Islamist militants when they shot and killed 14 people and wounded 22 others last Dec. 2 at a holiday party. Farook and Malik were later killed in a shootout with police and the FBI said it wants to read the data on Farook’s phone to investigate any links with militant groups.

Earlier this week, a Brooklyn judge ruled that the government had overstepped its authority by seeking similar assistance from Apple in a drug case.

(Reporting by Jim Finkle in Boston and Dustin Volz in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Dan Levine, Heather Somerville, Sarah McBride, Julia Love in San Francisco; Editing by Jonathan Weber, Grant McCool and Bill Rigby)

Apple lawyer, FBI director face off in Congress on iPhone encryption

By Julia Harte and Julia Edwards

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – FBI Director James Comey told a congressional panel on Tuesday that a final court ruling forcing Apple Inc <AAPL.O> to give the FBI data from an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters would be “potentially precedential” in other cases where the agency might request similar cooperation from technology companies.

The remarks were a slight change to Comey’s statement last week that ordering Apple to unlock the phone was “unlikely to be a trailblazer” for setting a precedent for other cases.

Tuesday’s testimony from Comey and remarks before the same U.S. House Judiciary Committee by Apple’s general counsel, Bruce Sewell, brought to Congress a public fight between Apple and the government over the dueling interests of privacy and security that has so far only been heard in the courts.

On Feb. 16, a federal court in California instructed Apple to write special software to unlock the iPhone 5c used by gunman Rizwan Farook, an order the company is contesting.

Sewell and Comey’s remarks also clarified some areas where the two sides fundamentally disagree. Comey said the tool created for Farook’s iPhone would not work on other models. But Sewell said the tool that Apple was being asked to create would work on any iPhone.

“This is not about the San Bernardino case. This is about the safety and security of every iPhone that is in use today,” Sewell said.

Committee members seized on Comey’s statement that the case could set a legal precedent allowing the agency access to any encrypted device.

“Given… that Congress has explicitly denied you that authority so far, can you appreciate our frustration that this case appears to be little more than an end run around this committee?” asked the panel’s ranking minority member, Michigan Representative John Conyers.

Comey responded that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority, but rather to maintain its ability to obtain electronic information under legal authorities that Congress has already provided.

He also acknowledged that it was a “mistake” for the FBI to have asked San Bernardino County officials to reset the phone’s cloud storage account after it was seized. The decision prevented the device, which was owned by the county, Farook’s employer, from backing up information that the FBI could have read.

Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, shot and killed 14 people and wounded 22 others last Dec. 2 before they were themselves killed in a shootout with police. The government has said the attack was inspired by Islamist militants and the FBI wants to read the phone’s data to investigate any links with militant groups.

Comey told a congressional panel last Thursday that the phone could have “locator services” that would help the agency fill in a gap in its knowledge of the route the couple traveled as they fled.

“We’re missing 19 minutes before they were finally killed by law enforcement,” Comey said. “The answer to that might be on the device.”

A federal judge handed Apple a victory in another phone unlocking case in Brooklyn on Monday, ruling that he did not have the legal authority to order Apple to disable the security of an iPhone that was seized during a drug investigation.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Tuesday at the RSA Cybersecurity conference in San Francisco that she was “disappointed” by the Brooklyn ruling, and rebuffed Apple’s claim that its Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination was being violated.

The Justice Department is “not alleging that [Apple has] done anything wrong,” Lynch said, but is treating the company as a third party holding data valuable to an ongoing investigation. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance testified in support of the FBI on Tuesday, arguing that default device encryption “severely harms” criminal prosecutions at the state level, including in cases in his district involving at least 175 iPhones.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards and Julia Harte; Editing by Bill Rigby and Grant McCool)

Apple calls FBI iPhone request ‘unprecedented’ in court filing

(Reuters) – Apple Inc on Thursday struck back in court against a U.S. government request to unlock an encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters, arguing such a move would violate its free speech rights and require the company to devote significant resources to comply.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation is seeking Apple’s help to access shooter Rizwan Farook’s iPhone by disabling some of its passcode protections.

Apple argued in its brief that software was a form of protected speech, and thus the Justice Department’s demand violated the constitution.

“The government’s request here creates an unprecedented burden on Apple and violates Apple’s First Amendment rights against compelled speech,” it said.

Apple also argued that the court was over-stepping its jurisdiction, noting that Congress had rejected legislation that would have required companies to do the things the government is asking Apple to do in this case.

Apple said the court order, if upheld, could leave individuals and business vulnerable to an unlimited array of government directives.

“Under the same legal theories advocated by the government here, the government could argue that it should be permitted to force citizens to do all manner of things ‘necessary’ to assist it in enforcing the laws,” Apple said. It gave examples, “like compelling a pharmaceutical company against its will to produce drugs needed to carry out a lethal injection in furtherance of a lawfully issued death warrant or requiring a journalist to plant a false story in order to help lure out a fugitive.”

Apple’s resistance has intensified a national debate about whether the government should have technological access, or a “back door” to get into privately owned phones. The Justice Department has argued that Apple has no legal basis to refuse its help.

Some of the largest tech companies appear to be lining up behind Apple. Google and Facebook will both file briefs supporting the iPhone maker, said several sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly about it. Microsoft will file a friend-of the-court brief as well, company President Brad Smith said in congressional testimony Thursday. Twitter also said it will sign a brief in support of Apple.

Apple laid out in its brief the resources it believes would be necessary to comply with the government’s request, saying it would likely require a team of up to 10 Apple engineers and employees for as long as four weeks.

Complying with the request would also likely lead to “hundreds” of more demands from law enforcement, Apple said.

“Responding to these demands would effectively require Apple to create full-time positions in a new ‘hacking’ department to service government requests,” the company said in the filing.

“Apple would need to hire people whose sole function would be to assist with processing and effectuating such orders,” wrote Lisa Olle, an Apple lawyer and manager of privacy and law enforcement compliance. “These people would have no other necessary business or operations function at Apple” and would be charged with crafting what Apple referred to as “GovtOS.”

Government officials have rejected that characterization and earlier on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey told a congressional panel that court approval of the FBI’s request was “unlikely to be a trailblazer” in other cases.

While the case “will be instructive for other courts,” larger policy questions about reasonable law enforcement access to encrypted data will likely need to be resolved by Congress and others, Comey said.

Shares of Apple were barely changed and closed up less than 1 percent at $96.76.

Apple also raised the specter of courts ordering it to help in other cases in other ways, such as writing computer code that would turn on an iPhone microphone to help surveillance.

The company also criticized the Justice Department for publicizing the order, which would normally have been filed under seal.

“This is the only case in counsel’s memory in which an FBI Director has blogged in real-time about pending litigation, suggesting that the government does not believe the data on the phone will yield critical evidence about other suspects,” the company said.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said in an interview on Wednesday with ABC News that the company was prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary.

(Reporting by Dan Levine, Joseph Menn and Julia Love in San Francisco and Dustin Volz in Washington; Editing by Jonathan Weber, Bill Rigby and Richard Chang)

U.S. ramps up Apple fight with new filing in iPhone unlocking case

WASHINGTON/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion seeking to compel Apple Inc to comply with a judge’s order for the company to unlock the encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters, portraying the tech giant’s refusal as a “marketing strategy.”

The filing escalated a showdown between the Obama administration and Silicon Valley over security and privacy that ignited earlier this week.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is seeking the tech giant’s help to access the shooter’s phone by disabling some of its passcode protections. The company so far has pushed back, and on Thursday won three extra days to respond to the order.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The motion to compel Apple to comply did not carry specific penalties for the company, and the Justice Department declined to comment on what recourse it was willing to seek. In the order, prosecutors acknowledged that the filing “is not legally necessary.”

But the Justice Department said the motion was in response to Apple CEO Tim Cook’s public statement Wednesday, which included a refusal to “hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers.”

The clash between Apple and the Justice Department has driven straight to the heart of a long-running debate over how much law enforcement and intelligence officials should be able to monitor digital communications.

A federal court hearing in California has been scheduled for March 22 in the case, according to Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.

“Rather than assist the effort to fully investigate a deadly terrorist attack … Apple has responded by publicly repudiating that order,” prosecutors wrote in the Friday order.

“Apple’s current refusal to comply with the court’s order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,” prosecutors said.

The two sides have been on a collision course since Apple and Google began offering default end-to-end encryption on their devices in 2014, a move prompted in part by the surveillance revelations from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

But the Justice Department struggled to find a compelling case where encryption proved to be an insurmountable hurdle for its investigators until the Dec. 2 shooting rampage by Rizwan Farook and his wife in San Bernardino, California, which killed 14. Authorities believe the couple was inspired by the Islamic State.

Some technology experts and privacy advocates backing Apple suggest Farook’s work phone likely contains little data of value. They have accused the Justice Department of choreographing the case to achieve a broader goal of gaining support for legislation or a legal precedent that would force companies to crack their encryption for investigators.

The case has quickly become a topic in the U.S. presidential race. Republican frontrunner Donald Trump on Friday called for a “boycott” against Apple until the company complied with the court order.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards, Dustin Volz and Lisa Richwine; Additional reporting by David Ingram; Editing by Andrew Hay and Bill Rigby)