本文摘要：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.旧金山——苹果公司本周三回

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.旧金山——苹果公司本周三回应，赞成和批评联邦法院拒绝其协助联邦调查局(FBI)关卡一部iPhone的命令。去年12月，两名袭击者在加利福尼亚州圣贝纳迪诺杀死了14人，其中一个袭击者曾用于过这部手机。

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.本周二，加州中央区联邦地区法院法官谢莉·皮姆(Sheri Pym)命令苹果跨过赛义德·里兹万·法鲁克(Syed Rizwan Farook)用过的iPhone 5C的安全性功能。法鲁克和他的妻子塔什芬·马利克(Tashfeen Malik)攻击了他同事举行的节日聚会，之后双双被警方射杀。Judge Pym ordered Apple to build special software that would essentially act as a skeleton key capable of unlocking the phone.皮姆法官命令苹果公司建构专门的软件，当作关卡该手机的万能钥匙。

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.但数小时后，苹果首席执行官蒂莫西·D·库克(Timothy D. Cook)发表声明，宣告拒绝接受恪守这道命令，该公司和执法人员部门之间的法律对付早已构成。一方面苹果回应要希望维护客户隐私，另一方面，执法人员部门声称新的加密技术巩固了他们防治和打击犯罪的能力。

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.在声明中，库克称之为法院的这道命令是联邦政府“史无前例的一步”。“我们赞成这道命令，因为它涉及的含义相比之下远超过了眼前这个法律案例的范畴，”他写到。

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.”当被问到苹果的抗命时，司法部(Justice Department)援引了加利福尼亚中央区联邦检察官艾琳·M·德克尔(Eileen M. Decker)的声明：“我们早已向受害者及其家属做出肃穆允诺，我们不会想方设法一切办法搜集尽量多的信息和证据。这是受害者和家属理所当然取得的对待。

”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.联邦调查局说道，他们的专家无法提供法鲁克iPhone上的数据，只有苹果才有办法跨过它的安全性功能。联邦调查局专家们回应，根据这种手机的安全性功能，如果10次尝试输出密码告终，就可能会永久丧失手机上的数据。

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.司法部已获得了针对这部手机的搜查令，作为机主，法鲁克的前雇员圣贝纳迪诺县公共卫生署表示同意对其展开检查。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.由于苹果公司拒绝接受强迫获取手机加密技术的“钥匙”，联邦检察官说道，他们别无选择，不能让法官被迫苹果提供援助。

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.”库克说道，这道命令相等于拒绝他们建构一个“后门”，跨过苹果强劲的加密系统——“我们显然就没这样的东西，我们指出建构出有这样的东西过于过危险性。”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，苹果和谷歌——全球96%的智能手机都用于它们的操作系统——宣告，他们早已用“仅有磁盘”加密方式新的设计了软件，因此自己也无法关卡其产品。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.由于警方和检察官期望公司能建构一个可以跨过加密系统的主密钥，双方之间经常出现了对立。

技术公司回应，建构这样的密钥不会在隐私方面造成灾难性的后果。“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.”“联邦调查局或许用了另一种措辞来形容这个工具，但不要被误导：建构一个使用这种方式跨过安全性屏障的iOS版本，毫无疑问就创立了一个后门，”库克写到。“虽然政府可能会声称只仅限于在本案中用于这个后门，但是他们没办法确保将来会失控。”An Apple spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the statement, but the company’s most likely next step is to file an appeal.苹果发言人拒绝接受对这份声明展开详尽说明，但该公司的下一步行动很有可能就是驳回裁决。

The legal issues are complicated. They involve statutory interpretation, rather than constitutional rights, and they could end up before the Supreme Court.涉及的法律问题很简单。它们牵涉到到法律说明，而不是宪法权利问题，最后有可能会诉至最高法院。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.就像苹果公司认为的，FBI并没拒绝国会通过法律来解决问题关于加密的分歧，而是对1789年的《所有令状法案》(All Writs Act)明确提出了一种看上去很精致的理解。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.”该法律容许法官“发给所有令状”，只要“有适当，或能为各自辖区获取必要协助且合乎法律的限于和原则”。

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.政府回应，这条法律向法官彰显了明确的裁量权，可拒绝“第三方”继续执行法庭的命令。政府援引的若干案件中还包括，1977年的一项裁决拒绝电话公司加装一台电话号码记录器(pen register)，它可以记录某条电话线路拨叫的所有号码。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.而苹果公司则指出，该法案的适用范围有严苛的容许。

2005年，一位联邦治安法官裁决，无法利用这项法律，在没搜查令的情况下，被迫电信服务提供商容许对一台移动电话展开动态追踪。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.”苹果公司律师马克·J·施威林格(Marc J. Zwillinger)去年10月就一宗涉及案件发信称之为，无法通过理解《所有令状法案》，“来被迫一家企业获得一台不归其所有的设备的所有权，或掌控该设备并对其展开确保，特别是在是此种确保并不归属于该公司经营范围，况且政府有可能还有其他手段获得其索要的信息。”The government says it does not have those alternative means.政府回应，它并没其他手段。

Mr. Cook’s statement called the government’s demands “chilling.”库克在声明中称之为，政府的拒绝让人“深感寒意”。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.”他补足道：“如果政府动用《所有令状法案》让关卡iPhone显得更容易，它就有能力入侵任何人的设备并获得其数据。政府就可以伸延这种侵害隐私的作法，拒绝苹果撰写监控软件截击您的信息，采访您的身体健康记录或金融数据，跟踪您的方位，甚至在您不知情的情况下采访您手机的麦克风或摄像头。

”The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that defends digital rights, said it was siding with Apple.维护数字权利的非营利的组织电子前沿基金会(Electronic Frontier Foundation)回应，它反对苹果公司。“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.”“政府拒绝苹果创立一个主密钥，好让它能找出一部手机，”该基金会周二晚间回应。“一旦创立了这个密钥，我们可以认同，政府就不会一而再、再而三地拒绝找出其他的手机，并动用这种权力与任何一种公然获取强劲安全性性能的软件或设备讨好。

”The San Bernardino case is the most prominent such case, but it is not the first.圣贝纳迪诺案是此类案件中最不受注目的一宗，但并不是第一宗。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，布鲁克林的联邦治安法官詹姆斯·奥伦斯坦(James Orenstein)，对于他能否拒绝苹果停止使用最新款iPhone中的安全性功能传达了顾虑，其理由是尽管司法部再三劝说，但国会没能解决问题这个问题。

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.该法官回应，这种催促不应由另一项法律首府，即1994年《通信帮助执法人员法案 》(Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act)，该法案涵括了通信和宽带企业。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.国会仍然在辩论否对该法案展开修改，将苹果、Facebook、谷歌(Google)这样的科技企业划入其中。

奥伦斯坦回应，如果国会做出这样的修改，预计他不会考虑到责令苹果关卡手机。涉及案件仍在审理当中。

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.尽管按照苹果的描述，该公司赞成皮姆法官的命令是根据原则保卫隐私权，但当前用户对身份盗取、网络犯罪、情报机构的电子监控、执法人员机构的越界行径越发深感情绪，苹果的一个动机也是维护其强大加密技术的声誉。Apple also says that a master key would amount to a vulnerability that hackers could exploit.苹果还回应，主密钥不会包含安全隐患，黑客可能会加以利用。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.中国于是以紧密注目着这场争端。分析人士回应，在信息加密的监管方面，中国的确不会参照美国的作法，近于有可能会拒绝跨国公司获取类似于对美国的因应。

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，北京方面明确提出了若干项法规，想拒绝外国企业交还在中国出售设备的加密密钥。但在外国行业团体极力施加压力之后，北京作出了妥协。尽管如此，中国在去年12月通过的缉毒法，还是拒绝外国企业交还技术信息，并在牵涉到恐怖主义的案件中，依照警方拒绝协助展开解密。

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.尽管尚能不确切这项法律不会如何实行，但美国执法人员机构拒绝关卡iPhone的作法，可能会让北京方面更为大胆，做出某种程度的拒绝。中国也近于有可能会拒绝获得关卡iPhone的任何技术。

就在苹果2014年发售更加强劲的加密标准之后，中国的苹果用户就受到了黑客攻击，黑客当时谋求获得iCloud用户的指定信息。

本文来源：ku游官网-www.tjysygb.com