Apple rejects FBI’s request

Agencies and tech companies must work together to provide digital security

Edward Snowden is calling the San Bernadino Apple vs. FBI case “the most important tech case in a decade,” and after both sides spent nearly six hours testifying before Congress Monday, Feb. 29, the public should note that the outcome of this case could potentially set a precedent for all future digital privacy cases.

Technology— Apple fights against a backdoor to an iPhone. Google Images

Technology— Apple fights against a backdoor to an iPhone. Google Images

The FBI had basically asked Apple to build what Apple CEO Tim Cook called a backdoor to the iPhone — more specifically to make a new version of the iPhone operating system that could reroute several important security features and could be installed on an iPhone recovered during the investigation of San Bernadino shooters Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik — and Apple said no.

Tim Cook released a statement to all Apple customers, Feb. 16, stating that the FBI’s request has implications “far beyond the legal case at hand” and also that once this technology was created, there would be no way to ensure that it would not get into the wrong hands.

Although FBI Director James Comey agreed that the outcome of this case could set a precedent for encryption cases in the future, the FBI is currently only asking Apple to utilize its resources to investigate a single device in a single case.

“This is not the end of privacy,” the Justice Department said, directly referencing the claims made by Apple to its customers. “Rather than assist the effort to fully investigate a deadly terrorist attack by obeying the court’s order, Apple has responded by publicly repudiating that order.”

The prosecutors also accused Apple of exaggerating the difficulty of breaking into the specific phone and even accused the company of doing so out of concern for its business model and as a public brand marketing strategy.

It did not take long for the presidential candidates to weigh in on such a significant issue, and as in many other controversies, Donald Trump was the first to speak up in favor of national security.

“I agree 100 percent with the courts,” Trump said on “Fox and Friends.” “This is a case that certainly we should be able to get into the phone, and we should find out what happened and why it happened.

…We have to do that.”

Though Sen. Ted Cruz agreed that Apple had a point in refusing to put a backdoor in every cell phone, he did ultimately concede that the FBI’s request overrides Apple’s concern for precedents and digital privacy.

“This concerns the phone of one of the San Bernardino (terrorists), and for law enforcement to get a judicial search order, that is consistent with the Fourth Amendment,” Cruz said.

Sen. Marco Rubio agreed that a backdoor, if ever created, could be extremely devastating if hacked by a criminal group.

“We’re going to have to work with the tech industry to figure out a way forward on encryption that allows us some capability to access information — especially in an emergency circumstance,” Rubio said.

The Democratic candidates refrained from taking any positions on the issue.

There is no clear solution because the values of security and privacy are so sacred to American rights. Also, the definition of privacy has changed dramatically due to the explosion of media and digital sharing. Thus, defending digital security is a relatively new battle.

“Historically, privacy was almost implicit, because it was hard to find and gather information,” Bill Gates said in 2014. “But in the digital world, whether it’s digital cameras or satellites or just what you click on, we need to have more explicit rules — not just for governments but also for private companies.”

Gates and Rubio accurately state that the government must strictly regulate the flow of digital information in order to maintain privacy for citizens as well as security and safety for America.

Apple stated in the letter to its customers that it “do(es) not have sympathy for terrorists,” which is a wonderful thing to be reassured of, but it still does not help the FBI protect civilians or acquire any more information on the San Bernadino terrorists.

If the government does not maintain national security, there will be no digital privacy to protect; thus, the American people should be patient with the courts and with Apple as they hopefully work toward a compromise that would set a precedent for placing appropriate value on security and privacy and would prioritize safety, peace and justice.

Rozenblum is an opinion writer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *