Apple is a corporation with amazing brand recognition, great products, and good customer service. They’ve become a bastion of the global market and their products can be found in every country in the world. Recently, though, they’ve become embroiled in a legal battle with the FBI (whose branding is dubious at best) over what amounts to the privacy rights of Apple’s users both in the US and globally. Is Apple right to defy the government?
What Happened?
First, let’s get some background on the argument. The phone in question belonged to Syed Farook, one of the shooters responsible for 14 deaths during a shooting spree in San Bernardino, CA. The FBI would very much like to search this phone for evidence that it’s owner was tied to international terror groups, and rightly so. That intelligence could be crucial to the FBI’s struggle against domestic terror.The problem is, they can’t get around Apple’s standard encryption software, and neither can Apple.
In cases like this, the FBI would typically (and did) ask for a subpoena from a federal judge that compelled Apple to make the information accessible.The subpoena was granted by a federal judge in February of 2016. Apple has complied with these demands in the past, but this time they’re refusing on the grounds that the government is ,in their opinion, overstepping it’s boundaries. The problem lies with the subpoena itself: ordering Apple to provide access to the phone means that Apple would have to write a new version of the iPhone’s operating system that would circumvent the relevant security features. The FBI is claiming that this is necessary in the interest of national security, but Apple is calling it dangerous.
In an open letter published to the company’s website, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said: "The FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession."
In layman’s terms, Apple is saying the they’d be creating a backdoor that would allow any federal or local law enforcement agencies who held the technology to have unlimited access to any iPhone in their physical control. As expected, the FBI views it a little differently. FBI chief James Comey phrased it this way: “There’s already a door on that iPhone. All we’re asking is that Apple remove the vicious guard dog so that we can pick the lock.”
Locked Out
In a stunning twist, the FBI director announced on March 2nd that “Mistakes had been made in the 24 hours after the attack.” While trying to get into the phone, he said, FBI agents had reset the password for the phone’s iCloud account. While they hoped this would get them past the “lock” feature, it in fact did the opposite- it basically locked them out and eliminated other ways to get in.
In a New York Times article published on March 2nd, it was revealed that Apple had, in fact, suggested an alternate way for the FBI to access the phones iCloud data, but the FBI had instead tried the password change tactic and locked themselves out further. It was further revealed that the FBI had instructed the owner of the phone and the shooter’s former employer, which happened to be the County of San Bernadino, to have employees password-protect their information stored on the iCloud.
The fact that the FBI had ignored Apple’s suggestion to try a different method, and the fact that they told San Bernadino County to change the password in the first place caused Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R, Utah) to make a statement critical of the FBI and it’s handling of the case. “With all due respect to the F.B.I., they didn’t do what Apple had suggested they do in order to retrieve the data, correct? I mean, when they went to change the password, that kind of screwed things up, did it not?” Rep. Chaffetz said in a congressional hearing.
Many other statements and compelling arguments were made during that hearing, including impassioned speeches supporting both the FBI and Apple. Perhaps the most telling, though, was made by Mr. Comey himself. When asked if the FBI would use the disputed technology to unlock other phones, Mr. Comey’s response was “Of course.”
