What You Need To Know About Apple vs. The FBI

Tim Cook, the head of the company, criticized a court order seeking a special version of iOS that would help the Federal Bureau of Investigation access data stored on a terrorist’s iPhone.

苹果公司CEO库克，批评了寻找特殊版本的iOS法院命令，这种iOS版本可以帮助联邦调查局访问一名恐怖分子的iPhone手机上的数据。

Apple’s fight against the FBI is anything but simple -- and we don’t know how it’s going to turn out. In the most basic sense, the debate is about privacy versus security, with valid arguments on each side. There’s a good chance you will be pressured to have an opinion about this in the coming days, so we’ve gathered some talking points.

苹果与联邦调查局的对抗并非那么简单——我们也不知道事情的走势将会如何。从最基本的常识看，这场辩论涉及隐私和安全，双方都有有力的论点。

First, Understand What The FBI Wants Apple To Do

1.首先，理解联邦调查局希望苹果做什么

You’ve probably heard the words "backdoor" and "encryption" if you’ve kept up with this at all. Here’s the big thing to understand: The government wants Apple to help unlock an iPhone -- not suck data out of it -- by installing a customized version of iOS.

如果你一直在关注这件事，应该听说过“软件后门”和“数据加密”这两个词。我们需要了解的重点是：政府希望苹果帮助他们解锁一部手机——而不是要窃取里面的数据——通过安装一个定制版的iOS。

So, Why Is This A Big Deal?

2.这为什么会成为热点事件呢？

The overall concern put forth by Apple is that developing the software to help unlock the phone would create a "backdoor" -- a way into any iOS device owned by suspects and innocent civilians alike. If the backdoor analogy isn’t working for you, think of it more like a skeleton key. The basic password you keep on your iPhone to protect your personal data would essentially be useless in the face of law enforcement.

苹果提出的所有担心在于：开发出帮助解锁手机的软件将会创造出一个“后门”——这个后门可以进入任一部iOS设备，而这个设备可能为嫌疑人所有，也可能为无辜的市民所有。如果这个后门的类比不适用于你，你可以想象一下万能钥匙。你iPhone手机上用来保护你的个人数据的基本密码，在执法面前可能变得毫无用处。

So, this is a big deal because it’s theoretically something that will impact your privacy. (Or, if not your privacy, the privacy of millions upon millions of people who own iPhones and iPads.) But it’s also a big deal because it’s a matter of national security.

所以这会成为一个热门事件，因为从理论上说这可能会影响到你的隐私。（或者，即使影响不到你的隐私，至少会影响到成千上万拥有iPhone手机或iPad的人的隐私。）但是，这成为热门事件还因为它涉及国家安全。

As Nellie Bowles wrote for The Guardian, "if our lives are lived through our phones now, how can law enforcement do its job if it can’t get into them?" Best case scenario, authorities use the technology to catch bad people and prevent attacks while good people go on living their lives.

像内莉·鲍尔斯在《卫报》上所说，“如果现在的我们的生活依赖于手机，那么法律的实施如何在不进入手机的情况下正常工作？”最佳方案便是，当局利用科技来抓住坏人，同时保证好人继续他们本来的生活而免受攻击。

Does The FBI Really Even Need Apple’s Help?

3.联邦调查局真的需要苹果的帮助吗？

Maybe not, which adds a new wrinkle to the whole situation. This specific request is really centered on making things easier for law enforcement. The FBI is trying to "brute force" the iPhone in question by trying every potential password.

或许并不需要，这也为整个形势增加了一个利好因素。这个特殊的要求真的把中心放在了使法律实施起来更加单上。联邦调查局正在通过尝试每一种可能的密码来强行解决这一亟待解决的问题。

As Micah Lee wrote for The Intercept, this can take a really long time with the software as-is. Actually, depending on the password, it could take thousands of years to accomplish. And depending on how the security is set up, guessing an incorrect password enough times could also wipe out all of the data on the iPhone. (For what it’s worth, that’s not unique to iPhones: My Android phone, like my iPhone, is set up to essentially "self-destruct" if you try and fail to crack its password enough times.)

正如迈卡·李在 The Intercept上所写，这将会花费很长时间。事实上，依靠密码可能要耗时上千年来完成。而如果根据当时设定的安全程序的话，尝试错误的密码达到足够多的次数时，手机也会自动消除其中的数据（无论如何，这不仅适用于苹果手机：我的安卓手机，比如我的手机，如果你尝试足够多的次数仍然没有解锁的话，它将会从根本上自毁。）

It’s theoretically possible for the FBI to successfully guess a single iPhone’s password without Apple’s help. But the agency wants Apple to develop a way to bypass the feature that wipes the iPhone’s data after unsuccessful guesses, so it appears the FBI does need the company’s help if it wants to access this device.

从理论上说，联邦调查局在没有苹果帮助的情况下，也有可能成功破译一部iPhone的密码。但是，当局想让苹果开发一种可以避免因输入错误密码而使数据被清除的方式，如此看来，联邦调查局如果想访问该设备的话，似乎的确需要苹果的帮助。

Even still, the FBI has considerable resources allowing it to conduct an investigation without accessing this one smartphone.

即使如此，联邦调查局有大量的资源允许它在不访问这部智能手机的情况下进行调查。

Earlier we mentioned the national security concern. But there are also arguments to be made against Apple that go beyond the scope of possible terror threats.

前面我们提到了国家安全问题，但是也有论据对苹果不利，比如苹果的做法也在一定程度上纵容了可能范围内的恐怖袭击。

First: Apple has cooperated with law enforcement and given data to the feds many times before. In fact, it’s already given data to the FBI in connection with this very terrorism case -- but that had to do with its iCloud service and not an iPhone.

首先：苹果之前已经配合执法并向联邦政府工作人员提供过很多次数据。事实上，它已经向联邦调查局提供了和这次恐怖案件有关联的数据——但那是与它的iCloud服务有关而不是iPhone手机。

This leads to a secondary concern, which is that the current situation is basically good marketing for Apple. The company’s greed isn’t really a reason to diminish privacy concerns, but it’s enough to make you skeptical about the purity of its motives, given that it provided data to authorities in the past.

这便导致了一个次生问题，当前的形式基本上是：苹果在市场上是畅销货。鉴于它过去曾向当局提供过数据，苹果公司的贪婪并不是减少隐私问题的真实原因，但这已足够使你怀疑其动机的纯洁性。

Cook’s letter has an inspirational flavor, because it appears to stand up for the little guy (that is, anyone who’s privileged enough to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for Apple’s products). But the letter is also kind of a big ad for Apple. You might summarize it like this, if you were feeling critical: "Our phones are the safest in the biz, and we’ll protect you against the government! Don’t buy Android!"

库克的信有一种鼓舞人心的意味，因为它似乎是站在了小人物的一方（即，任何有足够能力为苹果产品支付成百上千美元的人）。但这封信也是苹果的另一种广告宣传。你可能会这样总结，如果你感觉很重要：“我们的手机是业内最安全的，我们会保护你免受政府强权！不要购买安卓机！”

The Case For Apple

4.苹果的理由

The most compelling argument in favor of Apple’s stand against the FBI is that this could be a slippery slope. If Apple complies with this court order, then there will be additional pressure for it to comply with new requests in the future.

支持苹果对抗联邦调查局最有利的论据就是：这将会成为一个滑坡效应。如果苹果公司服从了这条法令，那么将来就会有额外的压力让它服从新的要求。

The tool could be used on iPhones beyond the scope of this case and set what some would consider to be an alarming precedent.

工具可以用在超出这个案件范围的iPhone手机上，同时设定一些可能想到的警报先例。

Alex Abdo, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, noted that the order might be unconstitutional.

美国公民自由联盟的律师亚历克斯·阿卜杜提到，这一命令可能是违反宪法的。

Plus, it sets an example for other nations that grapple with similar problems.

而且，这会为其他国家处理类似的问题提供先例。

完成阅读

来源:赫芬顿邮报爱语吧作者:一片很蓝的天