On Tuesday, a California federal judge order Apple to assist
the FBI in the San Bernardino investigation by designing a new operating system
to disable the feature that erases all contents after 10 failed passcode
attempts. This would allow the FBI to unlock the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook.
However, Apple CEO has refused their demand in a public letter published
Tuesday. He called the directive “an overreach by the U.S. government” and
building the feature would be “a backdoor to the iPhone... something we
consider too dangerous to create.” Cook wrote, "the government's demands
are chilling. … We are challenging the FBI's demands with the deepest respect
for American democracy and a love of our country." He continued, "The
government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of
security advancements that protect our customers -- including tens of millions
of American citizens -- from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals.”
The government justified their demands by stating that they
made a commitment to the victims and their families to try every means of
getting as much information and evidence about the attack. Donald Trump,
Republican candidate, agrees with the Courts that Apple should comply, saying,
"I think security over all -- we have to open it up, and we have to use
our heads."
Cook and Apple have received lots of support from the tech
community and other CEOs. Google CEO Sundar Pichai defended the decision,
saying it "Could be a troubling precedent." Because of our judicial
system, this would set a precedent, which would allow the government to make
similar demands in the future. Jan Koum, CEO of Whatsapp and board member of
Facebook, said, “I have always admired Tim Cook for his stance on privacy and
Apple's efforts to protect user data. … We must not allow this dangerous
precedent to be set. Today our freedom and our liberty is at stake."
This case is a matter of how much we are willing to give up
our freedoms and rights in the name of national security. Cook’s letter also
said, "The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one
phone. But that's simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used
over and over again, on any number of devices." Apple’s compliance would
be like opening Pandora’s box and giving the government total access to
everyone’s personal data.
In the courts, the Justice Department is citing a 1789 law
called the “All Writs Act” to force Apple to comply. However, it is likely that
Apple will argue that “The All Writs Act doesn’t allow
government to conscript a company into service if the company doesn’t have the
information … If the FBI is doing an investigation, it can’t force the local
locksmith to help it break into a house.”
What do you think? Should Apple comply with the courts? Does
Apple have a choice to comply or not? Where do we draw the line for national
security? Do you think Apple has a shot in winning the case?
http://fortune.com/2016/02/18/fbi-iphone/
2 comments:
This case brings me back to the controversy over the USA PATRIOT Act. Though it is intended to protect national security, dissenters firmly believe that the act infringes upon individuals' civil liberties.
Similarly, while the intentions are in the right place for the California court, I fully understand and respect Apple's choice to refuse to open "a backdoor to the iPhone" (Cook). Tim Cook was very respectful in his "Customer Letter", which has gone viral since he released it on Tuesday. He explained that he appreciates the tireless efforts of the FBI, and even noted that he has helped them in other ways during this investigation. However, when it became a matter of invading Apple customers' privacy, Cook would not stand by.
I do not think that Apple should go down without a fight. I think that, by going to court, they could hash this out rationally. However, I have a feeling that Apple would not be successful in winning the case. After all, as shown by the situation with the USA PATRIOT Act, defending national security often comes before protecting civil liberties. Additionally, the FBI seems to have a back-up plan, should Apple refuse to comply: "Even without Apple's cooperation, federal investigators should be able to hack the phone with the assistance of the NSA and the CIA" (Andrusewicz).
Source: http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/17/467035863/judge-orders-apple-to-help-investigators-unlock-california-shooters-phone
I understand where the California court is coming from and appreciate their gumption to try to get to the bottom of the San Bernardino investigation however I have to side with Apple on this. I think that if Apple were to agree to help hack iPhones it will open up a can of worms. As Ally said, once the technology is developed there will be nothing stopping the government from using it again. This would heavily impact the rights of privacy that Americans have and hold so dear. Apple has all rights to refuse compliance with the government if they stand on good legal ground and luckily they do. Apple's case will hold up in the court because their argument that although the government has the "All Wrights Act" this legislature does not extent to making Apple develop anything new to help them, rather just relinquish the information they do have, which is none. On the matter of what the government and people are willing to do to protect national security, I'd say that we are willing to sacrifice a lot, but not access to our private information. After 9/11 Americans gave up many convenances flying to protect such an innocent from happening again. However this is an isolated and controlled situation that is applied to everyone; phone hacking is another case entirely. People hold private information on their phone that they have a right to keep private. What's more the government would have unregulated control over whose phone they want to hack and the people would have nothing to say about it or may not even know. While in many ways Americans are willing to sacrifice things to help national security, this invasion is something they would not be willing to give up.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/17/467035863/judge-orders-apple-to-help-investigators-unlock-california-shooters-phone
Post a Comment