SAN FRANCISCO — Apple said on Wednesday that it would oppose and challenge a federal court order to help the F.B.I. unlock an iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December.

旧金山——苹果公司本周三表示，反对和质疑联邦法院要求其帮助联邦调查局(FBI)解锁一部iPhone的命令。去年12月，两名袭击者在加利福尼亚州圣贝纳迪诺杀害了14人，其中一个袭击者曾使用过这部手机。

On Tuesday, in a significant victory for the government, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym of the Federal District Court for the District of Central California ordered Apple to bypass security functions on an iPhone 5c used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who was killed by the police along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, after they attacked Mr. Farook’s co-workers at a holiday gathering.

本周二，加州中央区联邦地区法院法官谢莉·皮姆(Sheri Pym)命令苹果绕过赛义德·里兹万·法鲁克(Syed Rizwan Farook)用过的iPhone 5C的安全功能。法鲁克和他的妻子塔什芬·马利克(Tashfeen Malik)袭击了他同事举办的节日聚会，之后双双被警方击毙。

Judge Pym ordered Apple to build special software that would essentially act as a skeleton key capable of unlocking the phone.

皮姆法官命令苹果公司构建专门的软件，充当解锁该手机的万能钥匙。

But hours later, in a statement by its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, Apple announced its refusal to comply. The move sets up a legal showdown between the company, which says it is eager to protect the privacy of its customers, and the law enforcement authorities, who say that new encryption technologies hamper their ability to prevent and solve crime.

但数小时后，苹果首席执行官蒂莫西·D·库克(Timothy D. Cook)发表声明，宣布拒绝遵行这道命令，该公司和执法部门之间的法律对抗就此形成。一方面苹果表示要努力保护客户隐私，另一方面，执法部门宣称新的加密技术削弱了他们预防和打击犯罪的能力。

In his statement, Mr. Cook called the court order an “unprecedented step” by the federal government. “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,” he wrote.

在声明中，库克称法院的这道命令是联邦政府“史无前例的一步”。“我们反对这道命令，因为它牵涉的含义远远超出了眼前这个法律案例的范畴，”他写道。

Asked about Apple’s resistance, the Justice Department pointed to a statement by Eileen M. Decker, the United States attorney for the Central District of California: “We have made a solemn commitment to the victims and their families that we will leave no stone unturned as we gather as much information and evidence as possible. These victims and families deserve nothing less.”

当被问及苹果的抗命时，司法部(Justice Department)援引了加利福尼亚中央区联邦检察官艾琳·M·德克尔(Eileen M. Decker)的声明：“我们已经向受害者及其家属作出庄严承诺，我们会想尽一切办法收集尽可能多的信息和证据。这是受害者和家属理应获得的对待。”

The F.B.I. said that its experts had been unable to access data on Mr. Farook’s iPhone, and that only Apple could bypass its security features. F.B.I. experts have said they risk losing the data permanently after 10 failed attempts to enter the password because of the phone’s security features.

联邦调查局说，他们的专家无法获取法鲁克iPhone上的数据，只有苹果才有办法绕过它的安全功能。联邦调查局专家们表示，根据这种手机的安全功能，如果10次尝试输入密码失败，就可能会永久失去手机上的数据。

The Justice Department had secured a search warrant for the phone, owned by Mr. Farook’s former employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which consented to the search.

司法部已拿到了针对这部手机的搜查令，作为机主，法鲁克的前雇主圣贝纳迪诺县公共卫生署同意对其进行检查。

Because Apple declined to voluntarily provide, in essence, the “keys” to its encryption technology, federal prosecutors said they saw little choice but to get a judge to compel Apple’s assistance.

由于苹果公司拒绝自愿提供手机加密技术的“钥匙”，联邦检察官说，他们别无选择，只能让法官迫使苹果提供援助。

Mr. Cook said the order would amount to creating a “back door” to bypass Apple’s strong encryption standards — “something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.”

库克说，这道命令相当于要求他们构建一个“后门”，绕过苹果强大的加密系统——“我们根本就没有这样的东西，我们认为构建出这样的东西太过危险。”

In 2014, Apple and Google — whose operating systems are used in 96 percent of smartphones worldwide — announced that they had re-engineered their software with “full disk” encryption, and could no longer unlock their own products as a result.

2014年，苹果和谷歌——全球96%的智能手机都使用它们的操作系统——宣布，他们已经用“全磁盘”加密方式重新设计了软件，因此自己也无法解锁其产品。

That set up a confrontation with police and prosecutors, who want the companies to build, in essence, a master key that can be used to get around the encryption. The technology companies say that creating such a key would have disastrous consequences for privacy.

由于警方和检察官希望公司能构建一个可以绕过加密系统的主密钥，双方之间出现了矛盾。技术公司表示，构建这样的密钥会在隐私方面导致灾难性的后果。

“The F.B.I. may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a back door,” Mr. Cook wrote. “And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”

“联邦调查局也许用了另一种措辞来形容这个工具，但不要被误导：构建一个采用这种方式绕过安全屏障的iOS版本，无疑就创建了一个后门，”库克写道。“虽然政府可能会宣称只限于在本案中使用这个后门，但是他们没有办法保证将来不会失控。”

An Apple spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the statement, but the company’s most likely next step is to file an appeal.

苹果发言人拒绝对这份声明进行详细解释，但该公司的下一步行动很有可能就是提起上诉。

The legal issues are complicated. They involve statutory interpretation, rather than constitutional rights, and they could end up before the Supreme Court.

相关的法律问题很复杂。它们涉及到法律解释，而不是宪法权利问题，最后有可能会诉至最高法院。

As Apple noted, the F.B.I., instead of asking Congress to pass legislation resolving the encryption fight, has proposed what appears to be a novel reading of the All Writs Act of 1789.

就像苹果公司指出的，FBI并没有要求国会通过立法来解决关于加密的分歧，而是对1789年的《所有令状法案》(All Writs Act)提出了一种看起来很新颖的解读。

The law lets judges “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

该法律允许法官“签发所有令状”，只要“有必要，或能为各自辖区提供适当帮助且符合法律的适用和原则”。

The government says the law gives broad latitude to judges to require “third parties” to execute court orders. It has cited, among other cases, a 1977 ruling requiring phone companies to help set up a pen register, a device that records all numbers called from a particular phone line.

政府表示，这条法律向法官赋予了宽泛的裁量权，可要求“第三方”执行法庭的命令。政府援引的若干案件中包括，1977年的一项判决要求电话公司安装一台拨号记录器(pen register)，它可以记录某条电话线路拨叫的所有号码。

Apple, in turn, argues that the scope of the act has strict limits. In 2005, a federal magistrate judge rejected the argument that the law could be used to compel a telecommunications provider to allow real-time tracking of a cellphone without a search warrant.

而苹果公司则认为，该法案的适用范围有严格的限制。2005年，一位联邦治安法官裁定，不能利用这项法律，在没有搜查令的情况下，迫使电信服务提供商允许对一台移动电话进行实时跟踪。

Marc J. Zwillinger, a lawyer for Apple, wrote in a letter for a related case in October that the All Writs Act could not be interpreted to “force a company to take possession of a device outside of its possession or control and perform services on that device, particularly where the company does not perform such services as part of its business and there may be alternative means of obtaining the requested information available to the government.”

苹果公司律师马克·J·施威林格(Marc J. Zwillinger)去年10月就一宗相关案件发信称，不能通过解读《所有令状法案》，“来迫使一家企业取得一台不归其所有的设备的所有权，或控制该设备并对其进行维护，尤其是此种维护并不属于该公司经营范围，况且政府可能还有其他手段取得其索求的信息。”

The government says it does not have those alternative means.

政府表示，它并没有其他手段。

Mr. Cook’s statement called the government’s demands “chilling.”

库克在声明中称，政府的要求让人“感到寒意”。

He added: “If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.”

他补充道：“如果政府动用《所有令状法案》让解锁iPhone变得更容易，它就有能力侵入任何人的设备并取得其数据。政府就可以延伸这种侵犯隐私的做法，要求苹果编写监控软件拦截您的信息，访问您的健康记录或金融数据，追踪您的位置，甚至在您不知情的情况下访问您手机的麦克风或摄像头。”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that defends digital rights, said it was siding with Apple.

保护数字权利的非营利组织电子前沿基金会(Electronic Frontier Foundation)表示，它支持苹果公司。

“The government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone,” it said Tuesday evening. “And once that master key is created, we’re certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security.”

“政府要求苹果创建一个主密钥，好让它能解开一部手机，”该基金会周二晚间表示。“一旦创建了这个密钥，我们可以肯定，政府就会一而再、再而三地要求解开其他的手机，并动用这种权力与任何一种胆敢提供强大安全性能的软件或设备作对。”

The San Bernardino case is the most prominent such case, but it is not the first.

圣贝纳迪诺案是此类案件中最受关注的一宗，但并不是第一宗。

Last October, James Orenstein, a federal magistrate judge in Brooklyn, expressed doubts about whether he could require Apple to disable its latest iPhone security features, citing the failure of Congress to resolve the issue despite the urging of the Justice Department.

去年10月，布鲁克林的联邦治安法官詹姆斯·奥伦斯坦(James Orenstein)，对于他能否要求苹果禁用最新款iPhone中的安全功能表达了疑虑，其理由是尽管司法部一再催促，但国会未能解决这个问题。

The judge said such requests should fall under a different law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which covers telecommunications and broadband companies.

该法官表示，这种请求应由另一项法律管辖，即1994年《通信协助执法法案 》(Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act)，该法案涵盖了通信和宽带企业。

Congress has been debating whether to amend that act to include technology companies like Apple, Facebook and Google, and Judge Orenstein said he would consider ordering Apple to unlock the phone when and if Congress makes the change. That case is still pending.

国会一直在辩论是否对该法案进行修订，将苹果、Facebook、谷歌(Google)这样的科技企业纳入其中。奥伦斯坦表示，如果国会作出这样的修订，届时他会考虑责令苹果解锁手机。相关案件仍在审理当中。

Although Apple is portraying its opposition to Judge Pym’s order as a principled defense of privacy, one of its motivations is the preservation of its reputation for robust encryption, at a time of rising concerns about identity theft, cybercrime and electronic surveillance by intelligence agencies and overzealous law enforcement agencies.

尽管按照苹果的叙述，该公司反对皮姆法官的命令是根据原则捍卫隐私权，但当前用户对身份窃取、网络犯罪、情报机构的电子监控、执法机构的越界举动愈发感到焦虑，苹果的一个动机也是保护其强劲加密技术的声誉。

Apple also says that a master key would amount to a vulnerability that hackers could exploit.

苹果还表示，主密钥会构成安全隐患，黑客可能会加以利用。

China is watching the dispute closely. Analysts say that the Chinese government does take cues from the United States when it comes to encryption regulations, and that it would most likely demand that multinational companies provide accommodations similar to those in the United States.

中国正密切关注着这场争端。分析人士表示，在信息加密的监管方面，中国的确会参考美国的做法，极有可能会要求跨国公司提供类似于对美国的配合。

Last year, Beijing backed off several proposals that would have mandated that foreign firms provide encryption keys for devices sold in China after heavy pressure from foreign trade groups. Nonetheless, a Chinese antiterrorism law passed in December required foreign firms to hand over technical information and to aid with decryption when the police demand it in terrorism-related cases.

去年，北京方面提出了若干项法规，打算要求外国企业交出在中国出售设备的加密密钥。但在外国行业团体极力施压之后，北京做出了让步。尽管如此，中国在去年12月通过的反恐法，还是要求外国企业交出技术信息，并在涉及恐怖主义的案件中，依照警方要求帮助进行解密。

While it is still not clear how the law might be carried out, it is possible a push from American law enforcement agencies to unlock iPhones would embolden Beijing to demand the same. China would also most likely push to acquire any technology that would allow it to unlock iPhones. Just after Apple introduced tougher encryption standards in 2014, Apple users in China were targeted by an attack that sought to obtain login information from iCloud users.

尽管尚不清楚这项法律会如何实施，但美国执法机构要求解锁iPhone的做法，可能会让北京方面更加大胆，作出同样的要求。中国也极有可能会要求取得解锁iPhone的任何技术。就在苹果2014年推出更强大的加密标准之后，中国的苹果用户就受到了黑客攻击，黑客当时寻求取得iCloud用户的登录信息。