Apple Inc versus the FBI
How far can law enforcement authorities go in accessing the personal information of a suspected terrorist?
The confrontation between the US government and Apple Inc raises a difficult problem.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation requested that Apple unlock the iPhone 5s of a suspected terrorist who murdered 14 people during a shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California in December. The request was made so the FBI could analyse the telecommunications records and notes contained in the phone’s memory.
Apple refused to comply with the request, so the FBI filed a motion with the Federal District Court in California, which ordered Apple to unlock the device.
Despite the court order, Apple refused to unlock the iPhone. This is an unusual development, in which a business firm has flatly rejected a judicial order. The case is now set for a full-scale court battle.
The suspect was reportedly radicalised by the Islamic State militant group via the Internet. The FBI likely believes that in order to get an overall picture of the incident, including the presence or absence of a conspirator, it is essential to analyse the data contained in the iPhone.
The device cannot be unlocked without the correct passcode, and its contents would be erased after 10 incorrect entries. Also, the device has been designed so that it is impossible to electronically enter the passcode by connecting it to a personal computer.
The FBI has asked Apple to create a piece of software to deactivate the passcode protection feature only on this particular device. Normally, ordering the suspect to unlock the device would be logical, but that was made impossible when he was shot dead by police.
Apple’s view is that software is abused, there is the danger that all other iPhones could be unlocked.
Apple chief executive Tim Cook accused the US government of asking his firm to engineer the “software equivalent of cancer”.
“This is not about one phone,” Cook said. “This case is about the future. Can the government compel Apple to write software that we believe would make hundreds of millions of customers vulnerable around the world?”
A spate of information leaks resulting from hacking has led to information technology firms being asked to create flawless information protection measures. In light of such calls, Apple’s assertions are reasonable. Among the leading IT firms supporting Apple’s stance are Google Inc and Twitter.
When the US National Security Agency’s wiretapping activities were brought to light by Edward Snowden, IT firms were criticised for having cooperated with security authorities. That experience likely influenced the stance being taken by the IT giants now.
Smartphone technology, including iPhones, is rapidly advancing. Memory data is encrypted, and Apple does not hold the passcodes for each and every individual device. What’s needed, first of all, is the development of legislation that would respond to technological progress.
Regarding counter-terrorism, a certain amount of cooperation between investigative authorities and IT firms is vital. Yet it is important to strike a balance between measures against terrorism and the protection of personal information.
