PRO/CON: Is Apple right to say no?
March 16, 2016
Loading ...
PRO
There exists a fine line between individual privacy and national security. However, one thing is clear. The federal court order requiring Apple to create a new software feature that will be able to bypass the iPhone’s security features is something that has driven straight through that line and poses a threat to American rights.
Apple is under no obligation to help federal investigators unlock the iPhone used by the attacker who killed 14 people in San Bernardino. Yes, what happened was truly tragic and yes the government needs all the information it can get in order to prevent another incident from happening. However, the company is a third party group that is not involved in any way with the crime. They should not be forced to invent new software that aids the government just because federal investigators find it convenient for their case. Doing so would harm the company’s reputation; they would be sending out the message to their customers that their product no longer provides the privacy it once offered.
Many argue that the information in the iPhone related to the San Bernardino incident is crucial to learning more about the case. However, investigators should already be able to access information regarding the killer through the iPhone’s data linkage to iCloud or other social media platforms linked to the phone. There is no need to risk the security of many other iPhones just so that investigators gain a minor chance in obtaining relevant information.
And if such a court order would actually come to fruition, what would that mean in the future? Does that mean that whenever the government wants, it can just ask any random company to invent whatever they desire? Where would you draw the line between what crimes are important enough for such an order to take place? It is obvious that human rights are threatened. The success of a single order can be crucial in allowing the government to continue pushing its control over people’s daily lives all in the name of national security. Therefore, it is only right that Apple refuses now and serves as a model for all other companies and individuals to follow.
While security is indeed important to our lives, we should not have to forfeit our privacy and our rights for it. Apple is right in refusing to invent the software that will be able to unlock any iPhone. Such technology would be devastating once reaching the wrong hands. And despite the government’s insistence that it would be used for a single case, if they ask for it once they will ask for it again. Make no mistake about it.
CON
While privacy has always been a major tenet of the American belief system, it has no place in the Apple-FBI court battle. Somehow, a case that should only have been about password access to a single phone used by a San Bernardino terrorist took a turn to the fictitious and became engulfed in all sorts of fallacies. No one’s privacy is in jeopardy because of the mandate that Apple is refusing to comply with, and no one’s privacy will be so in the future.
The issue has been grossly overblown by media outlets and Apple supporters. While no one knows if any key information on ISIS is actually stored on the phone (there may not be anything of use), but developing the technology needed to gain access is also no dramatic endeavor. Apple openly admits it can write this software, and this is not the first time the government is compelling a tech company to provide software that has not been written. In Tuesday’s congressional hearing, prosecutors cited a case in which an unnamed company was mandated to produce an unencrypted version of encrypted information on a defendant’s computer.
The only thing the government is after is getting past the phone’s passcode barrier—no more, no less. Apple PR and inaccurate reporting are to thank for this distortion. The case has nothing to do with encryption, whatever Apple supporters think that means; encryption, the converting of information to a coded format, is mentioned over and over in Tim Cook’s open letter to consumers but is not even introduced in the mandate written by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. This fight is about the simple act of getting past the lock screen on a single phone, not about giving the government unprecedented degrees of large-scale access to personal data.
But, more importantly, people need to understand that granting access to the dead terrorist’s phone does not compromise the security of anyone else’s private information. The FBI has made it clear that the intellectual property that goes into creating a “backdoor” into the terrorist’s phone is Apple’s and Apple’s alone; law-enforcement doesn’t want to see the software and will have nothing to do with it. Yes, this is not the only phone that the FBI wants to break into, and, yes, a victory in court would probably set a precedent in favor of the government for other similar cases in the future, but, really, who cares?
The hassle lies with the government and Apple in having to deal with additional investigations, search warrants, and court orders—not with the American people. Unless you also gun down 14 people in the name of ISIS and land yourself in a criminal investigation, you have no reason to fret, because the FBI is not after your phone. The bottom line? It is foolish to conclude that American citizens’ phones—your phone—will somehow be torn apart, their contents exposed, as a result of a pro-government ruling.
Only after considering these facts can we see that there really is no sacrifice that goes into unlocking the terrorist’s iPhone; the ‘surrender-your-privacy-in-exchange-for-national-security’ line is thus obsolete and wholly misleading. With this said, Apple’s refusal to lend a helping hand to the FBI really has no basis other than, of course, that it doesn’t want to. If the tech company is as much an advocate of American values as it purports itself to be, it will heed the court’s mandate. Otherwise, it makes itself a champion of terrorists.