蘋果公司與FBI就是否解鎖一名恐怖分子生前的iPhone對峙，本周解鎖之爭出現(xiàn)意外的轉(zhuǎn)折：法官取消了一場萬眾期待的聽證會。

乍看起來蘋果獲得了勝利，但總體而言，這只是FBI與科技業(yè)之間持久戰(zhàn)的最初幾個回合而已。以下的簡明問答可以讓你快速了解本周的相關(guān)新聞，以及接下來會發(fā)生什么。

為什么法院取消了聽證？

你可能還記得，雙方最初之所以對簿公堂，是因為FBI希望蘋果編寫新的代碼，解鎖一部屬于死去恐怖分子的iPhone，但蘋果拒絕了。

但突然之間，美國司法部表示，聽說有一種解鎖iPhone的新方法，可能根本不需要蘋果提供幫助。法庭記錄披露，美國政府在距原定聽證會不到24小時之時從“第三方”處獲悉此方法。

那FBI到底要怎樣解鎖iPhone？

誰也不敢百分百確定，不過計算機學(xué)家喬納森?扎德爾斯基的解釋目前來看可能性最大。他猜測，與美國政府有合作關(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。蘋果的安全設(shè)置規(guī)定，如果連續(xù)十次輸入錯誤的密碼，iPhone存儲的所有內(nèi)容會自動刪除。但如果能復(fù)制芯片，F(xiàn)BI就可以無限次測試iPhone的密碼，不用再擔(dān)心資料被刪。

為什么說取消聽證是蘋果的勝利？

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

FBI最近天天抱怨蘋果不愿意解鎖，說得仿佛天都要塌了，不過現(xiàn)在看起來FBI并不需要蘋果相助，抱怨也就沒什么道理了。情勢這么一轉(zhuǎn)，美國政府針對蘋果高調(diào)的法律與公關(guān)活動也顯得越發(fā)笨拙。

對蘋果而言，本周的新聞能保證今后不必應(yīng)政府的要求改寫軟件。最近與FBI之爭也烘托了蘋果極力保護隱私的形象。蘋果的首席執(zhí)行官蒂姆?庫克主張，消費者應(yīng)該擁有為個人設(shè)備加密的權(quán)利，此次爭端也讓他的觀點深入人心。

另一方面，正如《華爾街日報》報道指出的，最近的新聞對蘋果并非有百利而無一害，因為蘋果的軟件可能存在安全漏洞。

現(xiàn)在本案進展如何？

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

卡多佐在電郵中寫道：“至于這次聽證會，當(dāng)然還有可能舉行，但可能性不大。FBI是要鬧到國會去。”

卡多佐認(rèn)為，從法理角度看，美國政府的立場一直站不住腳。因此，與其冒險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。

這場爭論告一段落了嗎？

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