Apple vs. the FBI
The main story dominating the news over the past week or two is the disagreement between Apple CEO Tim Cook and a court order for search and seizure by the FBI. The crux of the issue is this: The FBI recovered an iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters and the FBI is requesting that Apple develop a software to disable a security feature of the iPhone that will delete all of the phone’s contents after 10 incorrect guesses at the passcode[1]. There is a ferocious debate going on in the public about whether or not Apple should develop this software.
The FBI argues that they will only use this software once, and even more so, the FBI won’t even implement the software; they will bring the disputed iPhone to Apple’s HQ where Apple can implement the software and then take the phone back to the FBI station to crack the code…
On the other side of the dispute: Apple argues that complying this time for the FBI will set the precedent which will force them to comply in the future – when the bad guy is not nearly as guilty as the San Bernardino shooters.
Numerous business and political figures have come out in support either side – Bill Gates and cough-cough-vomit-cough Donald Trump have supported the FBI while Mark Zuckerberg and Edward Snowden have come out to support Apple. Before I tell you which side I fall on, let me lay out some points that I have heard from each side as well as counterpoints made by the other.
Supporters of the FBI: “Gaining access to the phone is matter of national security. Accessing this phone will allow the FBI to see who these terrorists were talking to and if they were planning another attack.”
Apple’s counterpoint: “What information can the FBI gain that they could not from subpoenaing their phone records? There is more than enough precedent already set for the FBI to gather the shooter’s texts and call history from whatever service provider they used.”
Supporters of the FBI: “Assume they were using an app that encrypts all text messages, we now need to access the phone to see the messages themselves”
Apple’s counterpoint: “…Good point…but you can always subpoena the phones of those the shooter texted and get the texts that way, assuming the shooters did not use an app that is similar to Mark Cuban’s CyberDust.”
Supporters of Apple: “The FBI has made a point about National Security, why has the NSA not been looped in at any point? The NSA employs some of the best hackers in the world, why not just use some their man power to crack the code?”
FBI’s counterpoint: “That might be illegal”
Supporters of Apple: “The NSA/FBI not doing something in the name of national security because ‘it might be illegal’ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA”
FBI’s counterpoint: “C’mon, we are asking nicely”
Supporters of the FBI: “This is no different than requesting a key to a locked safe of a murder suspect; if there is a key, or a key can be developed, a suspect or the manufacturer is obligated to turn it over”
Apple’s counterpoint: “Again, I see your point, but will have to disagree. This is not a key locked safe. This is a safe with a combination lock. A murder suspect is not obligated to give you the combination as they are protected by the 5th amendment of self-incrimination. The FBI would be able to crack the safe by being able to guess an unlimited amout times… but we at Apple saw this flaw of non-self-destructive-combination-lock-safes…”
Supporters of the FBI: “You are being a real dick right now-”
Apple’s continued counterpoint: “Also, in your safe example, if the FBI went to the safe manufacturer to request a new key, the manufacturer would not develop a key to unlock ALL safes, they would make a key to unlock ONE safe… unfortunately we cannot do that.”
Supporters of Apple: “Once created, this ‘master unlock’ software will inevitably get leaked and fall into the wrong hands and then everything Apple has done to promote the utmost security for its customers will be for not”
FBI’s counterpoint: “It won’t be our fault, as stated: the software will stay with Apple and we will only ask for it in extreme circumstances”
Supporters of Apple: “While we admire your belief in us, that puts a MAJOR target on our backs and that is one of the main reasons we have never attempted to create this software in the past. It’s not like we already have the software developed and stated we won’t give you the key; the software does not exist because of the implications of what its existence means.”
With all that being said, I side with Apple[2]. If you would like to know more about this, I suggest you listen to the On Point podcast that was taped today (3/1/16) as people much more informed than me debated the issue for ~45 minutes.
As always, thanks for reading and be on the lookout for more posts.
[1] Yes, I know that is a long sentence, but the is no way to break it up without messing up the message.
[2] For one of the first times in my life as I am a lifelong Android and Microsoft user.
