When Apple refused the FBI’s request to decrypt the iPhone of one of the San Bernadino shooters, it prompted a storm of controversy around privacy, security, and the interplay between private companies and the federal government.
The terrorist attack in December 2015 in San Bernardino, CA prompted FBI officials to confiscate the iPhone 5c of Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the assailants involved in the shooting. However, the iPhone would reset itself after 10 unsuccessful passcode attempts. In order to access information that it believed to help prevent future terrorist attacks, the FBI issued a court order that compelled Apple to unlock the phone, under the All Writs Act of 1789.
The All Writs Act authorizes the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
Apple rejected the order, believing that compliance with the FBI entails much greater repercussions than jeopardizing legal power and that the order is not a justifiable use of All Writs Act. Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote in an open letter to the public, “Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk.”
Specifically, the FBI requested Apple to create a new version of the iPhone iOS that circumvented security features. This “backdoor iOS” would be installed on Farook’s phone, but it could have the potential to unlock anyone’s. Cook explained that complying with the FBI order would pose a “threat to data security” and set “a dangerous precedent.”
Junior Miles Olson says, “I think it’s really great that Apple was able to stand up for privacy when the FBI clearly hasn’t been.”
Sophomore Frank Liu also sides with Apple. He says, “Since the All Writs Act was written back in the 1700s, the historical context is very different because back in the 1700s, you didn’t have cell phones, and you didn’t have Internet or file storage. So I feel like the historical context makes it different scenarios and not really applicable.”
Multiple companies, such as Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Google supported Apple in this case.
Cook wrote, “The FBI 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 backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”
The trillion-dollar company was relentless in its position, willing to push the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The question here then is this: could helping the FBI potentially prevent future terrorist attacks jeopardize the security of Apple’s customers and possibly set a new precedent?
This unfortunately lacked a clear-cut answer. Sophomore Avichal Goel sided with the FBI. He says, “I definitely think that Apple should do what the FBI wants them to do because it’s a national security risk, and protecting people’s lives is more important than protecting their privacy.”
Liu says, “I feel like the FBI, in trying to break open the iPhone, was trying to [set] a precedent so that in any future case, they could break the iPhone easily, and maybe not even necessarily report that they did so to the public, which I feel should not occur. I feel like even for terrorists, for Farook, even if he does have his iPhone, most people have a whole other computer they could have access to, so the iPhone itself might not just have all of the subject the FBI was trying to find.”
However, Goel continues, “If we can compromise the privacy of just a few people to improve national security, then we should definitely do it. Getting people’s personal information without their permission is better than killing people without their permission. It’s not like taking people’s privacy is a good thing, but it’s worth it if you can save people’s lives.”
Photography teacher Nick Carrillo says, “I know that they want to be black and white, but I think when it comes to human lives, it’s a matter of ethics and exceptions are sometimes made to prevent future attacks.”
Eventually, the FBI was able to unlock the iPhone via a third-party tool, without help from Apple, suggesting that the FBI did not try hard enough to unlock the iPhone and that the FBI could have been trying to set a new precedent for what legal power permits.
However, the FBI is now at it again, suing Apple in a new case to try to get the company to unlock another iPhone belonging to a drug dealer in Brooklyn, New York. The third-party tool used in the San Bernardino case only had the capability to unlock a select group of iPhones, so the FBI needs help once again for this new case.
Apple still believes that the FBI is trying to set a new precedent, and refuses again to offer help to the FBI for this case. The case is still occurring now, and time will corroborate whether the FBI’s motives are justified.
