Following the December 2015 terrorist shooting in San Bernardino, California, the FBI recovered an iPhone from one of the dead shooters. However, they could not unlock it. Consequently, the FBI sought a court order compelling Apple Corporation, the phone manufacturer to develop software that would enable the FBI to decrypt the security code. To this end, the FBI relied on The Writs Act of 1789 that empowers the federal courts to issue writs compelling private persons who are not a party to judicial proceedings assist the courts in dispensing justice (Limer). On the other hand, Apple argued that developing software that bypasses the security of one iPhone jeopardizes the data security of tens of millions of other phones since it software can be used by any person having ordinary knowledge in the field to decrypt the encryption in the said phones. The order was issued, but it was not executed by the FBI since it found a way of accessing the data in the iPhone in question (Johnson, Swartz, and Cava).
There is scholarly consensus to the effect that privacy issues in the Information Age have both financial and societal implications. The financial implications, for instance, crippling the ability of telecommunication providers to guarantee the privacy of the information of its customers may result in lower sales and eventually drive the firms out of the market. Apple’s brand is predicated on data security. If its products were to be susceptible to hacking, its sales would decline (Johnson, Swartz, and Cava).
On the other hand, privacy issues transcend financial implications. According to Apple, people use smart phones and IPads to store an incredible amount of personal information such as private conversations. Accordingly, they have high expectation on technology companies to protect their private information from falling into wrong hands. Issuance of the writ under the Act sets a precedent that can be relied on by government even in the most undeserving of cases. Moreover, it is not worth the exposition of personal information of tens of millions of Americans to vulnerability as of cybercrime (Cook).
In conclusion, this paper takes the view that The Writs Act of 1789 gives a blank cheque to government to break the security and privacy upon which digital trust is founded. It is informed by the fact that technological progress in telecommunication is greatly crippled if the people are not able to trust the technology companies with whom they entrust the data of their digital lives (Richards and Hartzog). Therefore, the courts ought to be cautious in applying a 227-year-old statute that has not been revised to keep abreast with technological progress overtime, to compel third parties to judicial proceedings to act which they had valid privacy motives not to.
Works Cited
Cook, Tim. A Message to Our Customers. 16 February 2016. Web. 21 April 2016. <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/>.
Johnson, Kevin, Jon Swartz and Marco della Cava. FBI Hacks into Terrorist’s iPhone Without Apple. 29 March 2016. Web. 21 April 2016. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/28/apple-justice-department-farook/82354040/>.
Limer, Eric. Most Useful Podcast Ever: Why Is the FBI Using a 227-Year-Old Law Against Apple? 24 February 2016. Web. 21 April 2016. <http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a19483/what-is-the-all-writs-act-of-1789-the-225-year-old-law-the-fbi-is-using-on-apple/>.
Richards, Neil and Woodrow Hartzog. Apple v the FBI: why the 1789 All Writs Act is the Wrong Tool. 25 February 2016. Web. 21 April 2016. <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/24/apple-v-the-fbi-why-1789-all-writs-act-is-the-wrong-tool>.
