The extraordinary legal fight pitting the Obama administration against technology giant Apple Inc. ended unexpectedly after the FBI said it used a mysterious method without Apple’s help to hack into a California mass shooter’s iPhone.
Left unanswered, however, were questions about how the sudden development would affect privacy in the future, and what happens the next time the government is frustrated by digital security lockout features.
Government prosecutors asked a federal judge on Monday to vacate a disputed order forcing Apple to help the FBI break into the iPhone, saying it was no longer necessary.
The FBI used the unspecified technique to access data on an iPhone used by gunman Syed Farook, who died with his wife in a gun battle with police after they killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December. The Justice Department said agents are now reviewing the information on the phone.
But the government’s brief court filing, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, provided no details about how the FBI got into the phone. Nor did it identify the non-government “outside party” that showed agents how to get past the phone’s security defenses. Authorities had previously said only Apple had the ability to help them unlock the phone.
Apple responded by saying it will continue to increase the security of its products.
“We will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along,” the company added in a statement, while reiterating its argument that the government’s demand for Apple’s help was wrong.
“This case should never have been brought,” the company said.
FBI Assistant Director David Bowdich said Monday that examining the iPhone was part of the authorities’ effort to learn if the San Bernardino shooters had worked with others or had targeted any other victims. “I am satisfied that we have access to more answers than we did before,” he said in a statement.
The dispute had ignited a fierce Internet-era national debate that pitted digital privacy rights against national security concerns and reinvigorated discussion over the impact of encryption on law enforcement’s ability to serve the public.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, said in a statement that while it was “preferable” that the government gained access to the iPhone without Apple’s help, the fundamental question of the extent to which the government should be able to access personal information remains unanswered.
Issa, a critic of the administration’s domestic surveillance practices, said the government’s legal action against Apple raised constitutional and privacy questions and that “those worried about our privacy should stay wary” because this doesn’t mean “their quest for a secret key into our devices is over.”
The surprise development punctured the temporary perception that Apple’s security might have been good enough to keep consumers’ personal information safe even from the U.S. government.
And while the Obama administration created a policy for disclosing such security vulnerabilities to companies, the policy allows for a vulnerability to be kept secret if there is a law enforcement or national security rationale for doing so.