SAN FRANCISCO — Apple said on Wednesday that itwould oppose and challenge a federal court order to help the F.B.I. unlock an iPhone used byone of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December.
舊金山——蘋果公司本周三表現，否決和質疑聯邦法院請求其贊助聯邦查詢拜訪局(FBI)解鎖一部iPhone的敕令。客歲12月，兩名打擊者在加利福尼亞州聖貝納迪諾殺戮了14人，個中一個打擊者曾應用過這部電話。
On Tuesday, in a significant victory for the government, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym of theFederal District Court for the District of Central California ordered Apple to bypass securityfunctions on an iPhone 5c used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who was killed by the police along withhis wife, Tashfeen Malik, after they attacked Mr. Farook’s co-workers at a holiday gathering.
本周二，加州中心區聯邦地域法院法官謝莉·皮姆(Sheri Pym)敕令蘋果繞過賽義德·裏茲萬·法魯克(SyedRizwan Farook)用過的iPhone 5C的平安功效。法魯克和他的老婆塔什芬·馬利克(Tashfeen Malik)打擊了他同事舉行的節日聚首，以後雙雙被警方擊斃。
Judge Pym ordered Apple to build special software that would essentially act as a skeleton keycapable of unlocking the phone.
皮姆法官敕令蘋果公司構建專門的軟件，充任解鎖該電話的全能鑰匙。
But hours later, in a statement by its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, Apple announced itsrefusal to comply. The move sets up a legal showdown between the company, which says it iseager to protect the privacy of its customers, and the law enforcement authorities, who saythat new encryption technologies hamper their ability to prevent and solve crime.
但數小時後，蘋果首席履行官蒂莫西·D·庫克(Timothy D. Cook)揭櫫聲明，宣告謝絕遵行這道敕令，該公司和法律部分之間的司法反抗就此構成。一方面蘋果表現要盡力掩護客戶隱私，另外一方面，法律部分傳播鼓吹新的加密技巧減弱了他們防備和襲擊犯法的才能。
In his statement, Mr. Cook called the court order an “unprecedented step” by the federalgovernment. “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,”he wrote.
在聲明中，庫克稱法院的這道敕令是聯邦當局“亙古未有的一步”。“咱們否決這道敕令，由於它牽扯的寄義遠遠超越了面前這個司法案例的領域，”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 asolemn commitment to the victims and their families that we will leave no stone unturned aswe gather as much information and evidence as possible. These victims and families deservenothing less.”
當被問及蘋果的逆命時，法律部(Justice Department)援用了加利福尼亞中心區聯邦審查官艾琳·M·德克爾(Eileen M. Decker)的聲明：“咱們已向受害者及其家眷作出肅靜許諾，咱們會想盡統統方法網絡盡量多的信息和證據。這是受害者和家眷理應得到的看待。”
The F.B.I. said that its experts had been unable to access data on Mr. Farook’s iPhone, and thatonly Apple could bypass its security features. F.B.I. experts have said they risk losing the datapermanently after 10 failed attempts to enter the password because of the phone’s securityfeatures.
聯邦查詢拜訪局說，他們的專家沒法獲得法魯克iPhone上的數據，只有蘋果才有方法繞過它的平安功效。聯邦查詢拜訪局專家們表現，依據這類電話的平安功效，假如10次試下輸入暗碼失敗，就大概會永遠落空電話上的數據。
The Justice Department had secured a search warrant for the phone, owned by Mr. Farook’sformer employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which consented tothe search.
法律部已拿到了針對這部電話的查抄令，作為機主，法魯克的前店主聖貝納迪諾縣大眾衛生署贊成對其舉行檢討。
Because Apple declined to voluntarily provide, in essence, the “keys” to its encryptiontechnology, federal prosecutors said they saw little choice but to get a judge to compel Apple’sassistance.
因為蘋果公司謝絕誌願供給電話加密技巧的“鑰匙”，聯邦審查官說，他們別無選取，只能讓法官迫使蘋果供給支援。
Mr. Cook said the order would amount to creating a “back door” to bypass Apple’s strongencryption standards — “something we simply do not have, and something we consider toodangerous to create.”
庫克說，這道敕令相稱於請求他們構建一個“後門”，繞過蘋果壯大的加密體系——“咱們基本就沒有如許的器械，咱們以為構建出如許的器械太甚傷害。”
In 2014, Apple and Google — whose operating systems are used in 96 percent of smartphonesworldwide — 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——環球96%的智妙手機都應用它們的操縱體系——宣告，他們已用“全磁盤”加密方法從新計劃了軟件，是以本身也沒法解鎖其產物。
That set up a confrontation with police and prosecutors, who want the companies to build, inessence, a master key that can be used to get around the encryption. The technologycompanies say that creating such a key would have disastrous consequences for privacy.
因為警方和審查官願望公司能構建一個可以繞過加密體系的主密鑰，兩邊之間湧現了抵觸。技巧公司表現，構建如許的密鑰會在隱私方面致使災害性的效果。
“The F.B.I. may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building aversion 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.”
“聯邦查詢拜訪局大概用了另外一種說話來形容這個對象，但不要被誤導：構建一個采取這類方法繞過平安樊籬的iOS版本，無疑就創立了一個後門，”庫克寫道。“固然當局大概會傳播鼓吹只限於在本案中應用這個後門，然則他們沒有方法包管未來不會失控。”
An Apple spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the statement, but the company’s mostlikely next step is to file an appeal.
蘋果談話人謝絕對這份聲明舉行具體說明，但該公司的下一步行為頗有大概便是提起上訴。
The legal issues are complicated. They involve statutory interpretation, rather thanconstitutional rights, and they could end up before the Supreme Court.
相幹的司法題目很龐雜。它們觸及到司法說明，而不是憲法權力題目，末了有大概會訴至最高法院。
As Apple noted, the F.B.I., instead of asking Congress to pass legislation resolving theencryption 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並無請求國會經由過程立法來辦理關於加密的不合，而是對1789年的《全部令狀法案》(All Writs Act)提出了一種看起來很新鮮的解讀。
The law lets judges “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respectivejurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
該司法許可法官“簽發全部令狀”，只要“有需要，或能為各自轄區供給恰當贊助且相符司法的實用和原則”。
The government says the law gives broad latitude to judges to require “third parties” toexecute court orders. It has cited, among other cases, a 1977 ruling requiring phonecompanies to help set up a pen register, a device that records all numbers called from aparticular phone line.
當局表現，這條司法向法官付與了寬泛的裁量權，可請求“第三方”履行法庭的敕令。當局援用的多少案件中包含，1977年的一項訊斷請求手機公司安置一台撥號記載器(pen register)，它可以記載某條手機路線撥叫的全部號碼。
Apple, in turn, argues that the scope of the act has strict limits. In 2005, a federal magistratejudge rejected the argument that the law could be used to compel a telecommunicationsprovider to allow real-time tracking of a cellphone without a search warrant.
而蘋果公司則以為，該法案的實用規模有嚴厲的限定。2005年，一名聯邦治安法官裁定，不克不及應用這項司法，在沒有查抄令的情形下，迫使電佩服務供給商許可對一台挪動手機舉行及時跟蹤。
Marc J. Zwillinger, a lawyer for Apple, wrote in a letter for a related case in October that the AllWrits Act could not be interpreted to “force a company to take possession of a device outsideof its possession or control and perform services on that device, particularly where thecompany does not perform such services as part of its business and there may be alternativemeans of obtaining the requested information available to the government.”
蘋果公司狀師馬克·J·施威林格(Marc J. Zwillinger)客歲10月就一宗相幹案件發信稱，不克不及經由過程解讀《全部令狀法案》，“來迫使一家企業獲得一台不歸其全部的裝備的全部權，或掌握該裝備並對其舉行保護，特別是此種保護其實不屬於該公司謀劃規模，何況當局大概另有其他手腕獲得其探索的信息。”
The government says it does not have those alternative means.
當局表現，它並無其他手腕。
Mr. Cook’s statement called the government’s demands “chilling.”
庫克在聲明中稱，當局的請求讓人“覺得寒意”。
He added: “If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock youriPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. Thegovernment could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillancesoftware to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track yourlocation, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.”
他彌補道：“假如當局動用《全部令狀法案》讓解鎖iPhone變得更易，它就有才能侵入任何人的裝備並獲得其數據。當局就能夠延長這類侵占隱私的做法，請求蘋果編寫監控軟件攔阻您的信息，拜訪您的康健記載或金融數據，追蹤您的地位，乃至在您不知情的情形下拜訪您電話的話筒或攝像頭。”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that defends digital rights, said itwas siding with Apple.
掩護數字權力的非營利構造電子前沿基金會(Electronic Frontier Foundation)表現，它支撐蘋果公司。
“The government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone,” itsaid Tuesday evening. “And once that master key is created, we’re certain that our governmentwill ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software ordevice that has the audacity to offer strong security.”
“當局請求蘋果創立一個主密鑰，好讓它能解開一部電話，”該基金會周二晚間表現。“一旦創立了這個密鑰，咱們可以確定，當局就會一而再、再而三地請求解開其他的電話，並動用這類權利與任何一種膽敢供給壯大平安機能的軟件或裝備尷尬刁難。”
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存眷的一宗，但並非第一宗。
Last October, James Orenstein, a federal magistrate judge in Brooklyn, expressed doubtsabout whether he could require Apple to disable its latest iPhone security features, citing thefailure of Congress to resolve the issue despite the urging of the Justice Department.
客歲10月，布魯克林的聯邦治安法官詹姆斯·奧倫斯坦(James Orenstein)，對付他可否請求蘋果禁用最新款iPhone中的平安功效表達了疑慮，其來由是只管法律部幾回再三敦促，但國會未能辦理這個題目。
The judge said such requests should fall under a different law, the Communications Assistancefor Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which covers telecommunications and broadband companies.
該法官表現，這類要求應由另外一項司法統領，即1994年《通訊幫忙法律法案 》(CommunicationsAssistance for Law Enforcement Act)，該法案涵蓋了通訊和寬帶企業。
Congress has been debating whether to amend that act to include technology companies likeApple, Facebook and Google, and Judge Orenstein said he would consider ordering Apple tounlock the phone when and if Congress makes the change. That case is still pending.
國會一向在爭辯是不是對該法案舉行修訂，將蘋果、Facebook、谷歌(Google)如許的科技企業納入個中。奧倫斯坦表現，假如國會作出如許的修訂，屆時他會斟酌責令蘋果解鎖電話。相幹案件仍在審應當中。
Although Apple is portraying its opposition to Judge Pym’s order as a principled defense ofprivacy, one of its motivations is the preservation of its reputation for robust encryption, ata time of rising concerns about identity theft, cybercrime and electronic surveillance byintelligence agencies and overzealous law enforcement agencies.
只管依照蘋果的論述，該公司否決皮姆法官的敕令是依據原則保衛隱私權，但當前用戶對身份盜取、收集犯法、諜報機構的電子監控、法律機構的越界舉措愈發覺得焦炙，蘋果的一個念頭也是掩護其強勁加密技巧的榮譽。
Apple also says that a master key would amount to a vulnerability that hackers could exploit.
蘋果還表現，主密鑰會組成平安隱患，黑客大概會加以應用。
China is watching the dispute closely. Analysts say that the Chinese government does takecues from the United States when it comes to encryption regulations, and that it would mostlikely demand that multinational companies provide accommodations similar to those in theUnited States.
中國正親密存眷著這場爭端。剖析人士表現，在信息加密的羈系方面，中國切實其實會參考美國的做法，極有大概會請求跨國公司供給相似於對美國的合營。
Last year, Beijing backed off several proposals that would have mandated that foreign firmsprovide encryption keys for devices sold in China after heavy pressure from foreign tradegroups. Nonetheless, a Chinese antiterrorism law passed in December required foreign firms tohand over technical information and to aid with decryption when the police demand it interrorism-related cases.
客歲，北京方面提出了多少項律例，盤算請求外國企業交出在中國出售裝備的加密密鑰。但在外國行業集團死力施壓以後，北京做出了妥協。只管如斯，中國在客歲12月經由過程的反恐法，照樣請求外國企業交出技巧信息，並在觸及恐懼主義的案件中，按照警方請求贊助舉行解密。
While it is still not clear how the law might be carried out, it is possible a push from Americanlaw 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 unlockiPhones. Just after Apple introduced tougher encryption standards in 2014, Apple users inChina were targeted by an attack that sought to obtain login information from iCloud users.
只管尚不清晰這項司法會若何實行，但美國法律機構請求解鎖iPhone的做法，大概會讓北京方面加倍勇敢，作出一樣的請求。中國也極有大概會請求獲得解鎖iPhone的任何技巧。就在蘋果2014年推出更壯大的加密尺度以後，中國的蘋果用戶就遭到了黑客進擊，黑客其時追求獲得iCloud用戶的登錄信息。
市場價：HK$ 110
