Apple and Microsoft do not want to give correspondence of their users to public services

In the era of revelations, started by Snowden, large digital companies are trying to protect their users from the disproportionately zealous intelligence services. So far, governments have failed to push through bans on the use of strong encryption methods that do not have “backdoors” - although they really want it.



The New York Times has learned that this summer, Apple received a court order to provide real-time access to the correspondence of suspects who used the iPhone and the iMessage messaging system. But the security services received a turnaround from the gate: Apple representatives said that all messages in the system are encrypted, so they simply cannot give out such information.

')

In the iMessage chat, message encryption occurs on the end-to-end system, that is, all work is done by end devices, and the company does not have access to the correspondence - unless the user uploads a copy of the message to iCloud, where it will be stored in unencrypted form. Several of these messages, stored on the server, the company still passed to public services.



True, one of the security experts, Nicholas Weaver, pointed out the vulnerabilities of the system used by Apple - the fact is that the keys to encrypt content are stored on Apple servers and transmitted to the user's phone. He does not have the opportunity to verify that he received the correct keys, and that the company has not changed them in any way. So, many experts are inclined to conclude that this system can in principle provide a “back door” to encryption if necessary.



Meanwhile, today there should be a regular court session in the case of the US Department of Justice against another giant corporation - Microsoft. The case has already started since 2013 - then the fbrovtsy requested from the company access to the e-mail of a person suspected of drug smuggling.



However, Microsoft did not issue this access, arguing that the server hosting the information of interest to the agents is located in Dublin - which means that civil servants need to get a warrant in Ireland. Their protection is based on the fact that since the data is distributed across the globe, the corporation is exempt from the need to issue it at the request of the American authorities. In addition, companies like Microsoft and Apple are not telecommunications - and therefore they are not obliged to obey the law on wiretaps relating to telecoms.



UK Prime Minister David Cameron opposes encryption methods outside the control of the government. He is supported by US President Barack Huseynovich Obama instructed the White House staff and all relevant agencies - the Department of Homeland Security, cybersecurity experts from the Department of Justice, the FBI and other three-letter agencies to figure out this issue and present their decision. But, either because of the complexity of the issue, or because of bureaucratic problems, no solution has been announced so far.



Tim Cook, director of Apple, believes that the organization of "backdoors" in encryption, designed for special services - this is a bad idea. “The battle over encryption and civil rights is heating up every day ,” he says. - We think it is very dangerous. If you leave the key under the door mat to the cops, thieves can find it. ”



Some officials and agents are very upset that their government is too soft on the fact that companies seem to have won in a dispute with the authorities about encryption practices. Other experts — for example, Brad Smith, Microsoft’s legal adviser — fear that if the US government wins the case and gets the right of such access, then governments of authoritarian countries (and as examples of such countries in the US call Russia and China) will be able to officially get access to information stored on US servers.



“People need an understanding of what laws will apply to their data,” another representative of the company expresses a similar opinion. “The French want their rights protected by French law.” Brazilians - to Brazilian. What will the US government do if other governments get access to servers in the US without any notice? ”



In addition, for some reason, no one remembers the decision of the United Nations (it seems that they no longer take it seriously) of May 2015, in which a simple conclusion was made: the possibility of anonymous use of the Internet and the use of encryption of personal data and means of communication are necessary and should regarded as part of human rights.



There is nothing new in this confrontation - the Clinton administration already tried to push through a similar initiative in the 90s, demanding that the decryption capability be built into the encryption devices of that time, but was defeated. So that the NSA is still to gain access to information of interest to them secretly, without notifying the companies associated with the information about it.