Name
Tutor
Course
24 February 2015
Apple versus the FBI Part 1
Apple and the FBI are in a legal tussle concerning the FBI’s demand to unlock an iPhone owned by Syed Farook, a suspect in the last year’s San Bernardino shooting. The suspect together with his wife was involved in the shooting incident which resulted in the death of 14 people. The FBI wanted the renowned phone maker to help in accessing the data on the phone. They want Apple to crack the password via the creation of software which can circumvent the security protocols of the phone and enable retrieval of data in the phone (Isaac 1). This is because the iPhone-5c in question has an auto-erase function which could erase the data if the authorities tried to use the wrong password ten times. Apple, on the other hand, is adamant to give in to these demands resulting in a lawsuit which was ruled in favor of the FBI.
Part 2
The FBI on its affidavit is using the All Writs Act, a 1789 law to make the demands instead of congressional legislation (Russel 1). The FBI has requested Apple to create a version of the iPhone operating system that when installed on the phone in question, will allow bypass of three security protocols. First, it will disable or bypass the auto-erase functionality of the phone. Secondly, it will remove delays on password inputs such that the FBI will be able to guess the password much quicker. Thirdly, it will enable the FBI to input the pass-code through a physical port on the phone or other wireless platforms such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi (Isaac 1). The judge ruled in favor of the FBI and instructed Apple to concede to these demands.
Apple in its defense claimed that it was not ready to create any back doors to the iPhone’s operating system. This would not only compromise user’s privacy, but it would also create a loophole to the malicious hacking of the iPhones (Apple 1). The company has vowed to appeal the California judge’s verdict. Through a letter published in the newspapers, the CEO of Apple outlined the dangers of creating parody software which could circumvent the security protocols of the phone. He explained that such software which not in existence today could be detrimental to the security of many iPhone users if it fell into the wrong hands. He also criticized the use of All Writs Act and termed it as a dangerous precedent because it sought to weaken Apple’s security system. The danger of such software is that it would allow the government to hack illegally into people’s phones and extract data without their consent (Russel 1).
Part 3
In my opinion, the government has no power of forcing telecommunication companies to create backdoor software to enable them access the phone’s data, irrespective of the magnitude of the incident committed by the terrorist. In my view, this is unacceptable. This case has brought up a number of questions concerning the government’s power to force phone companies to disclose user information. As long as the software is created, we will never be safe. Any person who gets his hands on it will have the power to hack into people’s phones and access their private information.
If Apple loses this case, it means that the encryption battle which has since been a thorny issue in America will be won easily. The government and any hacker will have the power to access our daily phone usage. The people we call, the texts we send, the pictures we take and the music we listen to in our phones. This will be a total disregard for the right to privacy and self-determination. At the same time, the case shows the magnitude of the need by the government to acquire information in the phones, by all means necessary.
Works Cited
Apple. (2016). A Message to Our Customers. Apple.com, 1. Retrieved from <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter> 24 February, 2016
Isaac, M. (2016). New York Times, 1. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/explaining-apples-fight-with-the-fbi.html?_r=0> 24 February, 2016
Russel, J. (2016). Techcrunch.com, 1. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-unlock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone> 24 February, 2016