FBI demands access to the data on the iPhone of the man who together with his wife shot the 14 people in the San Bernardino, California. The data is encrypted and password protected (the one to unlock the screen). This password cannot be obtained using a brute force method of sorting through millions of options in a computer program. After ten failed attempts the data automatically disappears from the phone, which is one of the key elements of iPhone security. In February of 2016 the FBI secured a court decision that obliged Apple to help access the data by removing the limitation of 10 inputs before erasing the data completely. Apple refused to comply with the court (Masunaga).
FBI claims that in certain cases the access to the data is crucial to fight terrorism. They initially claimed that it concerned this specific case. Law enforcement agencies have extracted correspondence of the San Bernardino shooter from iCloud, but suggested that the terrorist could have disabled synchronization with the cloud to hide the correspondence with possible accomplices. This means that the data on his iPhone could theoretically be instrumental in busting the terrorist network. This is a very strong argument since the lives of people are at stake here and in the face of the serious terrorist threat it seems logical to assist FBI in retrieving the data in terrorist related cases. I fact, FBI’s central argument is enhanced protection against terrorists. However, these claims are not accurate as it surfaced that there were other iPhones FBI wanted cracked and those were not all terrorism-related cases. Also FBI offered a back-door solution which means they’d get the key they could use uncontrollably anytime they deemed necessary (Ghoshal).
Naturally, safety is the common value for all people and for technological companies like Apple and Facebook. The companies are willing to work together with the governments and law enforcement agencies to enhance security but not to the expense of the basic freedoms (Masunaga). The problem with this particular confrontation is that Apple cannot provide access to an individual device without compromising the operating system. There are alternative solutions that could be implemented. For example, John McAffy, a well-known antivirus software developer proposed FBI that he should decrypt the information on the device in three weeks using social engineering and other methods that his programming team can skillfully devise to get the job done (Masunaga). This would make the request of back-door integration to the operating system unnecessary. That could be a compromise creative solution that would keep both privacy and national security requirements met. However, there is a risk of failure and there will definitely be cases where three weeks is too long for operative reaction of Special Forces to prevent terrorist attacks.
Former employee of DARPA Ted Goranson wrote that the right to protection of personal information as important to the modern hierarchy of rights and freedoms as the right to bear arms at the end of the XVIII century. Then the first amendment secured the right of citizens to own weapons. According to Goranson, the current situation requires to reconsider civil liberties at the highest level (Goranson).
Works Cited
Ghoshal, Abhimanyu. “Apple says it can’t comply with court order to hack San Bernadino shooter’s iPhone.” TNWNews. TNW News, 17 Febrary 2016. Web. 7 March 2016.
Goranson, Ted. “Apple Versus the G-men.” Project-Syndicate. Project Syndicate, 24 Febrary 2016. Web. 7 March 2016.
Masunaga, Samantha. Apple vs. “FBI: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, John McAfee and more are taking stands.” LATimes. Los Angeles Times, 23 Febrary 2016. Web. 7 March 2016.
