蘋(píng)果公司與FBI就是否解鎖一名恐怖分子生前的iPhone對(duì)峙,，本周解鎖之爭(zhēng)出現(xiàn)意外的轉(zhuǎn)折：法官取消了一場(chǎng)萬(wàn)眾期待的聽(tīng)證會(huì)。

乍看起來(lái)蘋(píng)果獲得了勝利,，但總體而言,，這只是FBI與科技業(yè)之間持久戰(zhàn)的最初幾個(gè)回合而已。以下的簡(jiǎn)明問(wèn)答可以讓你快速了解本周的相關(guān)新聞,，以及接下來(lái)會(huì)發(fā)生什么,。

為什么法院取消了聽(tīng)證？

你可能還記得,，雙方最初之所以對(duì)簿公堂,，是因?yàn)镕BI希望蘋(píng)果編寫(xiě)新的代碼，解鎖一部屬于死去恐怖分子的iPhone,，但蘋(píng)果拒絕了,。

但突然之間，美國(guó)司法部表示,，聽(tīng)說(shuō)有一種解鎖iPhone的新方法,，可能根本不需要蘋(píng)果提供幫助。法庭記錄披露,，美國(guó)政府在距原定聽(tīng)證會(huì)不到24小時(shí)之時(shí)從“第三方”處獲悉此方法,。

那FBI到底要怎樣解鎖iPhone？

誰(shuí)也不敢百分百確定,，不過(guò)計(jì)算機(jī)學(xué)家喬納森?扎德?tīng)査够慕忉屇壳皝?lái)看可能性最大,。他猜測(cè),，與美國(guó)政府有合作關(guān)系的電腦取證公司發(fā)現(xiàn)了一種復(fù)制iPhone關(guān)鍵芯片的方法。蘋(píng)果的安全設(shè)置規(guī)定,，如果連續(xù)十次輸入錯(cuò)誤的密碼,，iPhone存儲(chǔ)的所有內(nèi)容會(huì)自動(dòng)刪除。但如果能復(fù)制芯片,，F(xiàn)BI就可以無(wú)限次測(cè)試iPhone的密碼,，不用再擔(dān)心資料被刪。

為什么說(shuō)取消聽(tīng)證是蘋(píng)果的勝利,？

從頭到尾,，本案都不是針對(duì)某一部iPhone（其實(shí)手機(jī)里有可能沒(méi)什么重要信息），而是關(guān)乎開(kāi)先例,。這正是司法部選中本案的原因,，他們想用這個(gè)高調(diào)的恐怖分子證明，可以用國(guó)家安全的名義強(qiáng)令蘋(píng)果削弱iPhone的加密功能,。

FBI最近天天抱怨蘋(píng)果不愿意解鎖,，說(shuō)得仿佛天都要塌了，不過(guò)現(xiàn)在看起來(lái)FBI并不需要蘋(píng)果相助,，抱怨也就沒(méi)什么道理了,。情勢(shì)這么一轉(zhuǎn)，美國(guó)政府針對(duì)蘋(píng)果高調(diào)的法律與公關(guān)活動(dòng)也顯得越發(fā)笨拙,。

對(duì)蘋(píng)果而言,，本周的新聞能保證今后不必應(yīng)政府的要求改寫(xiě)軟件。最近與FBI之爭(zhēng)也烘托了蘋(píng)果極力保護(hù)隱私的形象,。蘋(píng)果的首席執(zhí)行官蒂姆?庫(kù)克主張,，消費(fèi)者應(yīng)該擁有為個(gè)人設(shè)備加密的權(quán)利，此次爭(zhēng)端也讓他的觀點(diǎn)深入人心,。

另一方面,，正如《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》報(bào)道指出的，最近的新聞對(duì)蘋(píng)果并非有百利而無(wú)一害,，因?yàn)樘O(píng)果的軟件可能存在安全漏洞,。

現(xiàn)在本案進(jìn)展如何？

國(guó)際法律援助公益組織電子前沿基金會(huì)的律師內(nèi)特?卡多佐稱(chēng),，雖然美國(guó)政府應(yīng)該在4月5日向法院遞交一份進(jìn)展報(bào)告,，但本案基本上已經(jīng)了結(jié)。

卡多佐在電郵中寫(xiě)道：“至于這次聽(tīng)證會(huì),，當(dāng)然還有可能舉行,，但可能性不大。FBI是要鬧到國(guó)會(huì)去,?！?/p>

卡多佐認(rèn)為,，從法理角度看，美國(guó)政府的立場(chǎng)一直站不住腳,。因此,，與其冒險(xiǎn)嘗試不受歡迎的先例，在法庭上一賭輸贏,，F(xiàn)BI還不如向議員施壓獲得更大的權(quán)限,。

這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論告一段落了嗎？

這更像是一出大戲才演完序幕,。作為回應(yīng),，蘋(píng)果和其他科技企業(yè)會(huì)把產(chǎn)品做得更安全。遲早有一天,，美國(guó)政府會(huì)拿著另一款原本破解不了的設(shè)備找科技公司麻煩,。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Pessy

審稿：夏林

A showdown between Apple and the FBI over a dead terrorist’s iPhone took a surprise twist this week, when a judge canceled a highly anticipated hearing at the 11th hour.

This came as a victory for Apple AAPL -0.50% but, overall, it is still early innings in what is likely to be a long and bruising battle between the FBI and the tech industry. Here’s a plain English Q&A to get you up to speed on this week’s news, and what will happen next.

Why was the court hearing canceled?

The two sides, you may recall, are in court in the first place because the FBI wants Apple to write new code that would unlock an iPhone belonging to a dead terrorist. Apple is refusing.

Then, all of a sudden, the Justice Department said it heard about a new way to unlock the iPhone and probably doesn’t need Apple’s help after all. A court transcript reveals the government learned this from a “third party” less than 24 hours before the hearing.

So how exactly is the FBI going to unlock the iPhone?

No one is 100% sure but the best explanation is by computer scientist Jonathan Zdziarski. He suspects one of the forensic companies on contract for the U.S. government found a way to replicate a key chip in the iPhone. The ability to replace the chip means the FBI can try many times to guess the phone’s password—and subvert an Apple security feature that erases the contents of an iPhone if someone enters the wrong password 10 times.

So why was this a victory for Apple?

All along, this case has been less about this specific iPhone (which likely contains nothing important) and more about setting a precedent. That’s why the Justice Department chose this case, involving a high-profile terrorist, to argue Apple should be forced to weaken the iPhone’s encryption in the name of national security.

The FBI’s recent sky-is-falling rhetoric now sounds less credible since the agency doesn’t appear to need Apple after all. This shift also makes the government’s very public legal and PR campaign against the company look more heavy-handed than before.

For Apple, the news ensures it will not have to rewrite its software at the request of the government. The recent events have also bolstered Apple’s role as a privacy champion, and strengthened the case of CEO Tim Cook that consumers should be able to encrypt their devices. (On the other hand, as The Wall Street Journalnotes, the recent news is not all good for Apple since it suggests the company’s software has security holes.)

So what happens with the case now?

While the government is supposed to file a status report with the court on April 5, the case is basically over, according to Nate Cardozo, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“Regarding whether this hearing ever takes place, it’s certainly possible but doesn’t seem at all likely. FBI is taking this fight to Congress,” Cardozo said by email.

Cardozo believes the government has been on shaky legal ground all along and that, rather than risk an unfavorable precedent, the FBI will press lawmakers to grant it new powers rather than roll the dice in court.

Is this the end of the debate?

More like the end of the beginning. Apple and other tech companies will respond to this week’s events by making their devices even more secure, and it’s only a matter of time until there is another case where the government demands access to a supposedly unbreakable device.