The Apple and FBI, privacy against law enforcement, debate that was shaping to be a landmark showdown took a surprising turn as things ended without further tussle. What was expected to be a battle turned out as a “never mind” after the FBI managed to retrieve data from an iPhone used by a terrorist of San Bernardino.
The journal estimates that, with the retrieval of the information on the iPhone, few people expect a conclusion to the developed case. However, the legal experts have different ideas on what the FBI and Apple dispute means and would result to, especially with regards to future cases of phone encryptions (Jacob 2016).
One view that truncated from the battle in the California federal is increased tension among relations between the government and other bodies with similar relations or cases. The reason is because it complicates things next time a similar situation arises.
Next time the US government may face a difficult time heading back to court where it needs a firm to cooperate with similar investigation, because it later came up saying it does not need Apple’s help unlock the phone after telling the judge only Apple could do that, according to an associate law professor, Victoria Schwartz.
The FBI claim that the altercation brought public attention which brought people to provide help for their nation’s security. The FBI say that the “unidentified third party” was a loyal American serving the nation. They claim that, if anything, Apple’s credibility should be in check because, after claiming they provide privacy how come the phone was unlocked. FBI maintains security and safety of the citizens as a priority while Apple believes substituting one for the other creates greater risks.
Legal claims: Apple
Apple was requested by the FBI to design a new tool in the form of a software that disables password protection on the iPhone. Making this however comes at the price of breaching the Free speech amongst other rights such as that of the due process that Apple Company is entitled to. Apple therefore, as per the law had the right to turn down the request from the FBI. According to many lawyers, Apple stood a high chance of winning the case if they argued based on their above mentioned rights. Therefore, Apple argument that speech cannot be forced from them especially when it is against their own interests. According to Apple, the FBI have provided nothing but speculation concerning the results of the information requested.
The FBI’s Claims:
The FBI Also provide a reasonable and solid argument. They call on the “All Writs Act”, which was passed in the 16th century, which suggested all forms of Aid that was deemed necessary or appropriate on the jurisdictions at hand and conform to the principle of the law should be rendered when necessary (Grant 2016). The law offers judges a wide area to coerce parties to liaise but with limits. However, this shall also only be explored when the judge has ran out of legal options to be explored, and that the matter at hand is a serious threat that has to be combated. FBI have a warrant to look into the phone but without the courts approval to compel Apple to help the warranty will be useless.
The bigger issues is whether criminals would use highly secured communications protocols to escape the justice and law from their illegal activities. The issue amid the two parties is more targeted about values rather than rules. Aplle is working hard to prevent this so as to avoid exploitation of this as a path to claim for hundreds of data not only from Apple but other companies.
Apple vs. All Writs Act.
According to Apple Company, the Judge has not invested much effort on looking at varieties of the limits of the All Writs Act. They claim that the act gives not the courts authority to liaise help what is recognized by the congress. The job at hand will tie up almost ten employees for nearly 30 days (Grant 2016), thus making the job cumbersome and costly. The company also argues that it is not their responsibility to aid the government just because they have place a good and service into the commerce stream.
Apple Company has its lawyers argue that the court recognizes the software as a speech form, thus, helping the FBI will be by no doubt violate the ideals of the first amendment The Fifth Amendment’s due-process is hard to follow based on Apple’s argument. The amendment protects US residents from denied and snatched liberty by the government. The requested process would also force Apple to act in a burdensome manner that violates their primary principles.
The arguments between Apple and the FBI has the interest of the American people. The Apple company does not want to violate privacy of their customers and on the other side the FBI wants to keep the very same customers safe. There is a conflict of interest with either of the parties arguing out which is the greater good and not which is the greater sin.
Reference
Grant Gross. (2016). Apple vs. the FBI: The legal arguments explained MORE LIKE THIS 5 things to remember during Tuesday's Apple vs. FBI hearing Apple logo from inside Apple Store in Boston Apple appeals order to unlock i. Apple has attacked the FBI's iPhone unlocking request on several legal fronts. 1 (1), 1.
Jacob Gershman. (2016). What an Apple-FBI Rematch Might Look Like.What an Apple-FBI Rematch Might Look Like. 1 (1), 1.
