In early December of 2015, Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik shot and killed 14 people in the now infamous San Bernardino shootings. During their investigation, FBI officials found Farook’s iPhone on the scene of the crime; however, it was passcode protected.
Ever since the attack—which is the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11—the FBI has been trying to force Apple to unlock Farook’s phone in order to further their investigation. However, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook is refusing to do so, saying that he doesn’t want to set a scary precedent for the American government to potentially have access to the encrypted personal technology of people across the country.
Although the FBI does have a solid case for why they should have access to Farook’s phone, Apple’s stance is the grander one when it comes to the big picture. If the FBI and Apple were to cooperate in order to create technology that could unlock Farook’s iPhone solely for the purpose of this investigation, who is to say that this technology wouldn’t fall into the wrong hands?
Ever since Edward Snowden went public about the NSA’s covert technology monitoring in 2013, the American public has been wary of any potential cooperation between technology companies and Uncle Sam. According to CNN, it is predicted that leaders of the technology sector (like Apple and Google) lost tens of millions of dollars of revenue after the scandal because of lost trust from consumers. In an effort of damage control, such companies have been forced to boost their encryption levels and site securities in order to keep consumers happy, as well as to send a strong message to the government that they will not be trifled with when it comes to the privacy of their users.
However, is Apple just taking a stand on this particular case in order to look strong for their customers? According to the Daily Beast, Apple has unlocked 70 iPhones in criminal cases since 2008, some as recently as 2015. However, none of the cases in which they fully cooperated with government officials were very high profile, hence they were not “tarnishing the Apple brand” by unlocking said iPhones.
While it may seem to many that there is some type of compromise on this issue, there is unfortunately no way for Apple to view cases with the FBI on a case-by-case basis when it comes to unlocking the phones of alleged or convicted felons. If the company were to give the FBI a permanent “back door” that would ease the unlocking and access of encrypted personal data, it would leave a dangerous gray area—when is this unlocking truly warranted?
It is undeniable that Syed Farook’s phone is worthy of controversy. Should Apple bend their big-picture principles in order to bring justice to a massive terrorist attack, or are they warranted in their steadfast refusal to allow the government to see people’s personal information?
If we as a society want to keep a semblance of personal security and trust in the privacy of our personal communications and information that we store on our phones, then we should be standing behind Apple and their decision to not unlock Farook’s phone. Because ultimately, giving the FBI the ability to unlock a single iPhone could lead to a questionable future where a private conversation is never truly private.
Samantha is a freshman majoring in journalism and communication arts. What do you think that Apple should do in this situation? Should they comply with the FBI? Or continue to deny the government what it is asking for? Please send all comments, questions and concerns to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
