Just before the end of 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation filed an application for assistance to decrypt and unlock an iPhone that was confiscated as evidence in an investigation. Apple is a technology company that has always been focused on customer security and has upheld privacy practices that involve systems that prohibit the company’s ability to decrypt their customers’ devices and thusly could not easily provide access to the device. Before eventually hacking into the iPhone through alternative methods, the FBI insisted that Apple create a backdoor tool that would allow the FBI to bypass the security measures engineered into the product. The discussions surrounding this case and their references to the All Writs Act of 1789 have set a precedent for differing perspectives regarding personal data privacy and digital security.
The Bigger Picture
The disagreement between Apple and the FBI originated from a request for Apple to provide access to encrypted data on an iPhone which belonged to the gunman from the San Bernadino shooting of 2015. The battle between Apple and the FBI held the public eye for a period of 43 days and had disturbing implications for the security of personal devices and the power of government (Weise, E. 2016). The intentions of the FBI were stated to be centered on achieving justice for the victims of the tragedy and their families, but the case gained additional attention in the technology space due to the FBI’s insistence on creating back-door access to the iPhone.
Cook (2016) of Apple stated that he believes encryption is the only method of keeping information secure, which objectively emphasizes the importance of encryption within the technology industry. Encryption serves as the most relied upon hindrance to the unauthorized access of information from a protected digital source, and creating a backdoor to bypass the iPhone’s encryption system would greatly weaken the protection that Apple has in place for its customers. Cook described the tool which the FBI sought from Apple as a modified version of the iPhone’s operating system which would bypass the normal security measures of the system. Leaders at Apple viewed this request as the potential start of an undermining of their security systems and a direct order to create a less secure environment for their users.
The FBI sought to utilize the All Writs Act of 1789 in efforts to expand its authority and force Apple to comply with their request to unlock the target iPhone. Apple immediately disagreed with the FBI’s demands, citing the unconstitutionality and unlawfulness of their request. After much discussion between Apple and the FBI, the FBI announced that it had obtained a third-party method for unencrypting the iPhone’s data and would not require Apple’s assistance to unlock the device (Weise, E. 2016). The FBI refused to disclose the identity of the third party who provided the organization with assistance and withdrew from taking legal action toward Apple. This landmark case brought government intervention and personal privacy concerns into the forefront of important national conversations which contemplated the future implications of changes to the landscape of consumer rights and encryption technology.
Those Opposed to Apple’s Compliance
Apple, as well as other technology companies and privacy advocate groups, believed that complying with the FBI’s request to bypass encryption algorithms would be devastating to the security and privacy of the iPhone product and its users. Privacy advocate groups believe that the privacy and security of personal information is of critical importance, and the creation of a backdoor for Apple’s iPhone security systems would endanger and violate the rights of millions of people. Apple’s competitors in the technology industry also backed Apple’s stance including Google, Microsoft, and Facebook; these companies shared the same concern that this court case could set the precedent for the future of data privacy and encryption technology.
Those in Favor of Apple’s Compliance
The FBI believed that the evidence on the shooter’s iPhone was critical to completing their investigation of the San Bernardino shooting, and that the cooperation of Apple was needed to fully obtain that information. Some of the families of the victims and government officials sided with the FBI’s stance on this court case explaining that Apple’s compliance should be obtained as a matter of public safety and national security. Information from the shooter’s device could be useful in identifying any possible co-conspirators or viewing communication interactions which could hold more evidence for the case.
The Relevance of the All Writs Act
The FBI invoked the All Writs Act of 1789, seeking a court order to compel the compliance of Apple to aid in their investigation because their technical assistance was deemed required to unlock the device and unencrypt the data it contained. According to the author at Epic.org, Apple argued that the All Writs Act does not provide grounds to force Apple to create software that allows the government to “hack into iPhones,” citing the First and Fifth Amendments. Lewis (2016) describes the problems surrounding All Writs Act as complex and states that the main function of the act is to grant federal judges the authority to compel citizens toward specific action within the limits of law. A writ is an antiquated term for a “formal order” which has fallen out of common usage in conversation and practice over the years. The All Writs Act has traditionally only been used in exceptional occurrences where no other legislation is relevant to the case at hand. The law has been applied several times in discussions regarding recent technological developments due to the breadth of the scope of the law. In 2005, the ruling of a federal judge determined that, though providers of cellphone services must be able to geographically locate their user’s devices, the phone service providers cannot be forced to actively track a customer’s cellphone without a warrant.
Resolution of the Issue
The resolution of Apple vs. FBI was anti-climactic and ended without a court ruling regarding the scope of the All Writs Act and its implications for the case because the FBI obtained an alternative method of unencrypting the iPhone device. However, Tim Cook (2016) of Apple published an open letter explaining his stance on the case, the FBI’s request, and the future of device security and privacy policy. In his letter, Cook emphasized the popularity of the iPhone device and explained that it is partially due to the careful concern that the company possess for the security of their customer’s personal information. He describes the company’s commitment to providing useful encryption methods that hold a customer-centric focus. The FBI’s potential success in this case would have had groundbreaking implications for the future of information security in the United States and could have possibly marked the end of personal data privacy within the country.
Conclusion
Regarding the technology industry, the Apple vs. FBI case could easily be the most important case in my lifetime because I believe it served as a demonstrative situation where a blatant attempt at government overreach was countered by privacy rights activists and powerful encryption technologies. I think that the willingness for Tim Cook to write an open letter discussing the reasoning behind Apple’s decision to oppose the court order was powerful and remains a remarkable document of post-internet technology history. This court case seems to have brought critically important discussions to public attention that I think all individuals should be conscious of in their roles as citizens and users of internet devices. Both parties appeared to discuss these issues with a mutual respect that I hope can continue to foster a healthy balance between personal privacy and justice for generations to come.
References
(n.d.). Apple v. FBI. Epic.org. https://epic.org/documents/apple-v-fbi-2/
Cook, T. (2016). A Message to Our Customers. Apple. https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
Lewis, D. (2016). What the All Writs Act of 1789 Has to Do With the iPhone. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-all-writs-act-1789-has-do-iphone-180958188/
Weise, E. (2016). Apple v FBI timeline: 43 days that rocked tech. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/03/15/apple-v-fbi-timeline/81827400/