蘋果拒絕破解加州槍案襲擊者手機
SAN FRANCISCO — Apple said on Wednesday that it would oppose and challenge a federal court order to help the F.B.I. unlock an iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December.
舊金山——蘋果公司本週三表示，反對和質疑聯邦法院要求其幫助聯邦調查局(FBI)解鎖一部iPhone的命令。去年12月，兩名襲擊者在加利福尼亞州聖貝納迪諾殺害了14人，其中一個襲擊者曾使用過這部手機。
On Tuesday, in a significant victory for the government, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym of the Federal District Court for the District of Central California ordered Apple to bypass security functions on an iPhone 5c used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who was killed by the police along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, after they attacked Mr. Farook’s co-workers at a holiday gathering.
本週二，加州中央區聯邦地區法院法官謝莉·皮姆(Sheri Pym)命令蘋果繞過賽義德·里茲萬·法魯克(Syed Rizwan Farook)用過的iPhone 5C的安全功能。法魯克和他的妻子塔什芬·馬利克(Tashfeen Malik)襲擊了他同事舉辦的節日聚會，之後雙雙被警方擊斃。
Judge Pym ordered Apple to build special software that would essentially act as a skeleton key capable of unlocking the phone.
皮姆法官命令蘋果公司構建專門的軟件，充當解鎖該手機的萬能鑰匙。
But hours later, in a statement by its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, Apple announced its refusal to comply. The move sets up a legal showdown between the company, which says it is eager to protect the privacy of its customers, and the law enforcement authorities, who say that new encryption technologies hamper their ability to prevent and solve crime.
但數小時後，蘋果首席執行官蒂莫西·D·庫克(Timothy D. Cook)發表聲明，宣佈拒絕遵行這道命令，該公司和執法部門之間的法律對抗就此形成。一方面蘋果表示要努力保護客戶隱私，另一方面，執法部門宣稱新的加密技術削弱了他們預防和打擊犯罪的能力。
In his statement, Mr. Cook called the court order an “unprecedented step” by the federal government. “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,” he wrote.
在聲明中，庫克稱法院的這道命令是聯邦政府“史無前例的一步”。“我們反對這道命令，因爲它牽涉的含義遠遠超出了眼前這個法律案例的範疇，”他寫道。
Asked about Apple’s resistance, the Justice Department pointed to a statement by Eileen M. Decker, the United States attorney for the Central District of California: “We have made a solemn commitment to the victims and their families that we will leave no stone unturned as we gather as much information and evidence as possible. These victims and families deserve nothing less.”
當被問及蘋果的抗命時，司法部(Justice Department)援引了加利福尼亞中央區聯邦檢察官艾琳·M·德克爾(Eileen M. Decker)的聲明：“我們已經向受害者及其家屬作出莊嚴承諾，我們會想盡一切辦法收集儘可能多的信息和證據。這是受害者和家屬理應獲得的對待。”
The F.B.I. said that its experts had been unable to access data on Mr. Farook’s iPhone, and that only Apple could bypass its security features. F.B.I. experts have said they risk losing the data permanently after 10 failed attempts to enter the password because of the phone’s security features.
聯邦調查局說，他們的專家無法獲取法魯克iPhone上的數據，只有蘋果纔有辦法繞過它的安全功能。聯邦調查局專家們表示，根據這種手機的安全功能，如果10次嘗試輸入密碼失敗，就可能會永久失去手機上的數據。
The Justice Department had secured a search warrant for the phone, owned by Mr. Farook’s former employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which consented to the search.
司法部已拿到了針對這部手機的搜查令，作爲機主，法魯克的前僱主聖貝納迪諾縣公共衛生署同意對其進行檢查。
Because Apple declined to voluntarily provide, in essence, the “keys” to its encryption technology, federal prosecutors said they saw little choice but to get a judge to compel Apple’s assistance.
由於蘋果公司拒絕自願提供手機加密技術的“鑰匙”，聯邦檢察官說，他們別無選擇，只能讓法官迫使蘋果提供援助。
Mr. Cook said the order would amount to creating a “back door” to bypass Apple’s strong encryption standards — “something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.”
庫克說，這道命令相當於要求他們構建一個“後門”，繞過蘋果強大的加密系統——“我們根本就沒有這樣的東西，我們認爲構建出這樣的東西太過危險。”
In 2014, Apple and Google — whose operating systems are used in 96 percent of smartphones worldwide — announced that they had re-engineered their software with “full disk” encryption, and could no longer unlock their own products as a result.
2014年，蘋果和谷歌——全球96%的智能手機都使用它們的操作系統——宣佈，他們已經用“全磁盤”加密方式重新設計了軟件，因此自己也無法解鎖其產品。
That set up a confrontation with police and prosecutors, who want the companies to build, in essence, a master key that can be used to get around the encryption. The technology companies say that creating such a key would have disastrous consequences for privacy.
由於警方和檢察官希望公司能構建一個可以繞過加密系統的主密鑰，雙方之間出現了矛盾。技術公司表示，構建這樣的密鑰會在隱私方面導致災難性的後果。
“The F.B.I. may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a back door,” Mr. Cook wrote. “And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”
“聯邦調查局也許用了另一種措辭來形容這個工具，但不要被誤導：構建一個採用這種方式繞過安全屏障的iOS版本，無疑就創建了一個後門，”庫克寫道。“雖然政府可能會宣稱只限於在本案中使用這個後門，但是他們沒有辦法保證將來不會失控。”
An Apple spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the statement, but the company’s most likely next step is to file an appeal.
蘋果發言人拒絕對這份聲明進行詳細解釋，但該公司的下一步行動很有可能就是提起上訴。
The legal issues are complicated. They involve statutory interpretation, rather than constitutional rights, and they could end up before the Supreme Court.
相關的法律問題很複雜。它們涉及到法律解釋，而不是憲法權利問題，最後有可能會訴至最高法院。
As Apple noted, the F.B.I., instead of asking Congress to pass legislation resolving the encryption fight, has proposed what appears to be a novel reading of the All Writs Act of 1789.
就像蘋果公司指出的，FBI並沒有要求國會通過立法來解決關於加密的分歧，而是對1789年的《所有令狀法案》(All Writs Act)提出了一種看起來很新穎的解讀。
The law lets judges “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
該法律允許法官“簽發所有令狀”，只要“有必要，或能爲各自轄區提供適當幫助且符合法律的適用和原則”。
The government says the law gives broad latitude to judges to require “third parties” to execute court orders. It has cited, among other cases, a 1977 ruling requiring phone companies to help set up a pen register, a device that records all numbers called from a particular phone line.
政府表示，這條法律向法官賦予了寬泛的裁量權，可要求“第三方”執行法庭的命令。政府援引的若干案件中包括，1977年的一項判決要求電話公司安裝一臺撥號記錄器(pen register)，它可以記錄某條電話線路撥叫的所有號碼。
Apple, in turn, argues that the scope of the act has strict limits. In 2005, a federal magistrate judge rejected the argument that the law could be used to compel a telecommunications provider to allow real-time tracking of a cellphone without a search warrant.
而蘋果公司則認爲，該法案的適用範圍有嚴格的限制。2005年，一位聯邦治安法官裁定，不能利用這項法律，在沒有搜查令的情況下，迫使電信服務提供商允許對一臺移動電話進行實時跟蹤。
Marc J. Zwillinger, a lawyer for Apple, wrote in a letter for a related case in October that the All Writs Act could not be interpreted to “force a company to take possession of a device outside of its possession or control and perform services on that device, particularly where the company does not perform such services as part of its business and there may be alternative means of obtaining the requested information available to the government.”
蘋果公司律師馬克·J·施威林格(Marc J. Zwillinger)去年10月就一宗相關案件發信稱，不能通過解讀《所有令狀法案》，“來迫使一家企業取得一臺不歸其所有的設備的所有權，或控制該設備並對其進行維護，尤其是此種維護並不屬於該公司經營範圍，況且政府可能還有其他手段取得其索求的信息。”
The government says it does not have those alternative means.
政府表示，它並沒有其他手段。
Mr. Cook’s statement called the government’s demands “chilling.”
庫克在聲明中稱，政府的要求讓人“感到寒意”。
He added: “If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.”
他補充道：“如果政府動用《所有令狀法案》讓解鎖iPhone變得更容易，它就有能力侵入任何人的設備並取得其數據。政府就可以延伸這種侵犯隱私的做法，要求蘋果編寫監控軟件攔截您的信息，訪問您的健康記錄或金融數據，追蹤您的位置，甚至在您不知情的情況下訪問您手機的麥克風或攝像頭。”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that defends digital rights, said it was siding with Apple.
保護數字權利的非營利組織電子前沿基金會(Electronic Frontier Foundation)表示，它支持蘋果公司。
“The government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone,” it said Tuesday evening. “And once that master key is created, we’re certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security.”
“政府要求蘋果創建一個主密鑰，好讓它能解開一部手機，”該基金會週二晚間表示。“一旦創建了這個密鑰，我們可以肯定，政府就會一而再、再而三地要求解開其他的手機，並動用這種權力與任何一種膽敢提供強大安全性能的軟件或設備作對。”
The San Bernardino case is the most prominent such case, but it is not the first.
聖貝納迪諾案是此類案件中最受關注的一宗，但並不是第一宗。
Last October, James Orenstein, a federal magistrate judge in Brooklyn, expressed doubts about whether he could require Apple to disable its latest iPhone security features, citing the failure of Congress to resolve the issue despite the urging of the Justice Department.
去年10月，布魯克林的聯邦治安法官詹姆斯·奧倫斯坦(James Orenstein)，對於他能否要求蘋果禁用最新款iPhone中的安全功能表達了疑慮，其理由是儘管司法部一再催促，但國會未能解決這個問題。
The judge said such requests should fall under a different law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which covers telecommunications and broadband companies.
該法官表示，這種請求應由另一項法律管轄，即1994年《通信協助執法法案 》(Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act)，該法案涵蓋了通信和寬帶企業。
Congress has been debating whether to amend that act to include technology companies like Apple, Facebook and Google, and Judge Orenstein said he would consider ordering Apple to unlock the phone when and if Congress makes the change. That case is still pending.
國會一直在辯論是否對該法案進行修訂，將蘋果、Facebook、谷歌(Google)這樣的科技企業納入其中。奧倫斯坦表示，如果國會作出這樣的修訂，屆時他會考慮責令蘋果解鎖手機。相關案件仍在審理當中。
Although Apple is portraying its opposition to Judge Pym’s order as a principled defense of privacy, one of its motivations is the preservation of its reputation for robust encryption, at a time of rising concerns about identity theft, cybercrime and electronic surveillance by intelligence agencies and overzealous law enforcement agencies.
儘管按照蘋果的敘述，該公司反對皮姆法官的命令是根據原則捍衛隱私權，但當前用戶對身份竊取、網絡犯罪、情報機構的電子監控、執法機構的越界舉動愈發感到焦慮，蘋果的一個動機也是保護其強勁加密技術的聲譽。
Apple also says that a master key would amount to a vulnerability that hackers could exploit.
蘋果還表示，主密鑰會構成安全隱患，黑客可能會加以利用。
China is watching the dispute closely. Analysts say that the Chinese government does take cues from the United States when it comes to encryption regulations, and that it would most likely demand that multinational companies provide accommodations similar to those in the United States.
中國正密切關注着這場爭端。分析人士表示，在信息加密的監管方面，中國的確會參考美國的做法，極有可能會要求跨國公司提供類似於對美國的配合。
Last year, Beijing backed off several proposals that would have mandated that foreign firms provide encryption keys for devices sold in China after heavy pressure from foreign trade groups. Nonetheless, a Chinese antiterrorism law passed in December required foreign firms to hand over technical information and to aid with decryption when the police demand it in terrorism-related cases.
去年，北京方面提出了若干項法規，打算要求外國企業交出在中國出售設備的加密密鑰。但在外國行業團體極力施壓之後，北京做出了讓步。儘管如此，中國在去年12月通過的反恐法，還是要求外國企業交出技術信息，並在涉及恐怖主義的案件中，依照警方要求幫助進行解密。
While it is still not clear how the law might be carried out, it is possible a push from American law enforcement agencies to unlock iPhones would embolden Beijing to demand the same. China would also most likely push to acquire any technology that would allow it to unlock iPhones. Just after Apple introduced tougher encryption standards in 2014, Apple users in China were targeted by an attack that sought to obtain login information from iCloud users.
儘管尚不清楚這項法律會如何實施，但美國執法機構要求解鎖iPhone的做法，可能會讓北京方面更加大膽，作出同樣的要求。中國也極有可能會要求取得解鎖iPhone的任何技術。就在蘋果2014年推出更強大的加密標準之後，中國的蘋果用戶就受到了黑客攻擊，黑客當時尋求取得iCloud用戶的登錄信息。
