FBI鬧烏龍 誤鎖加州槍擊案犯的iPhone

WASHINGTON — The head of the F.B.I. acknowledged on Tuesday that his agency lost a chance to capture data from the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino attackers when it ordered that his password to the online storage service iCloud be reset shortly after the rampage.

華盛頓——聯邦調查局(FBI)負責人本週二承認，在聖貝納迪諾槍擊案發生不久後，FBI下令重置了該案一名槍手在iCloud在線存儲服務上的密碼，結果貽誤了從該槍手的iPhone中提取數據的機會。

“There was a mistake made in the 24 hours after the attack,” James B. Comey Jr., the director of the F.B.I., told lawmakers at a hearing on the government’s attempt to force Apple to help “unlock” the iPhone.

“在襲擊事件發生24小時之內，犯了一個錯誤，”在政府企圖迫使蘋果公司幫助“解鎖”這部iPhone的一場聽證會上，FBI局長小詹姆斯·B·科米(James B. Comey Jr.)對議員說。

F.B.I. personnel apparently believed that by resetting the iCloud password, they could get access to information stored on the iPhone. Instead, the change had the opposite effect — locking them out and eliminating other means of getting in.

FBI探員似乎以爲，通過重置iCloud密碼，他們就可以訪問到存儲在iPhone上的信息。結果卻截然相反——他們被鎖在外面，再也找不到進入手機的其他方法了。

The iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the assailants in the Dec. 2 attack in which 14 people were killed, is at the center of a fierce legal and political fight over the balance between national security and consumer privacy. Many lawmakers at Tuesday’s hearing of the House Judiciary Committee seemed torn over where to draw the line.

這部iPhone的使用者是賽義德·里茲萬·法魯克(Syed Rizwan Farook)，他是去年12月2日一場槍擊案中的襲擊者之一。那場槍擊案導致了14人喪生。國家安全和消費者隱私權在法律和政治層面的一場激烈鬥爭，正在圍繞着這部iPhone展開。在衆議院司法委員會(Judiciary Committee)週二舉行的聽證會上，很多議員對於界限應該在哪裏感到心情矛盾。

“The big question for our country is how much privacy are we going to give up in the name of security,” Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, told Mr. Comey. “And there’s no easy answer to that.”

“我國的一個重大問題是：我們要爲安全的名義放棄多少隱私？”猶他州共和黨衆議員賈森·沙費特茲(Jason Chaffetz)對科米說。“這個問題沒有簡單的答案。”

While some lawmakers voiced support for Apple’s privacy concerns, others attacked the company’s position, saying it threatened to deprive the authorities of evidence in critical cases involving newer iPhones.

雖然一些議員對蘋果在隱私問題上的擔憂表達了支持，但另外一些議員則對該公司的立場進行了攻擊，稱在涉及新款iPhone的重大案件中，這樣做可能會讓官方喪失一些證據。

“We’re going to create evidence-free zones?” asked Representative Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who once served as a federal prosecutor. “Am I missing something?”

“我們是要創造不能取證的地帶嗎？”曾擔任聯邦檢察官的南卡羅來納州共和黨衆議員特雷·高迪(Trey Gowdy)問道。“我錯過什麼了嗎？”

“How the hell you can’t access a phone, I just find baffling,” he said.

“怎麼就不能進入一部手機呢，我簡直就不明白了，”他說。

Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel, told committee members that the F.B.I.’s demand for technical help to unlock Mr. Farook’s iPhone 5c “would set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion on the privacy and safety of its citizens.” Apple has said that in many cases investigators have other means to gain access to crucial information, and in some instances it has turned over data stored in iCloud.

蘋果公司總法律顧問布魯斯·希維爾(Bruce Sewell)對委員會的成員表示，FBI讓蘋果提供技術支持，解鎖法魯克的iPhone 5c的要求“會爲政府侵犯公民隱私和安全樹立一個危險的先例”。蘋果表示，很多情況下調查人員有其他取得關鍵信息的方法，並且在一些情況下，蘋果移交了存儲在iCloud上的信息。

Mr. Sewell reacted angrily to the Justice Department’s suggestion that Apple’s branding and marketing strategy was driving its resistance to helping the F.B.I., an assertion that he said made his “blood boil.”

司法部稱，是蘋果的品牌和營銷戰略促使其拒絕幫助FBI。對此，希維爾很憤怒，稱這個說法令他“怒火中燒”。

“We don’t put up billboards that market our security,” he said. “We do this because we think protecting security and privacy of hundreds of millions of iPhones is the right thing to do.”

“我們不是在打廣告宣傳我們的安全，”他說。“我們這麼做是因爲我們認爲，保護數億iPhone用戶的安全和隱私是正確的事。”