Apple Inc. has been asked by the FBI to unlock the phone used by one of the Islamist shooters that opened fire at an office party in San Bernardino.
I’m torn. The civil libertarian in me says, “Hooray” for Apple but worries that their intransigence will lead to legislation mandating a backdoor for law enforcement.
The phone in question did not even belong to the terrorist but to his employer who, presumably, does not object to having it unlocked. Indeed, I can envision a future version of IOS that has as a feature a Master Key that guarantees business or corporate users the ability to get into their own employees’ company-supplied phones. When an employee dies or quits, should an employer be left with a locked and worthless iPhone?
For my part, I don’t see a big problem with Apple unlocking the phone but maintaining control of the tools to do it. Take the phone and unlock it and return it to the FBI but do not release the keys. It is a small price to pay to prevent law enforcement from pushing through legislation that is way worse.
Government agencies, of course, would really like “back doors” built into our electronics so that they can access all our data at will. Knowing government, if the industry refuses to voluntarily build in back doors and such for law enforcement, the Usual Suspects will cobble together legislation demanding it.
As noted, I think Apple should have unlocked this phone, voluntarily.
It’s compulsion with which I have a problem. I think the smart thing for Apple would have been to volunteer to unlock the subject phone. Given the clear-cut case of this phone having been used by a terrorist, Apple should step up to help law enforcement, just as I would, given the circumstances, had I the knowledge and skills needed.
I have no problem with helping bring terrorists to justice and finding their comrades. Wouldn’t you do the same? If you had useful knowledge and skills, and you were convinced that the subject phone might contain information that could identify additional terrorists, would you refuse to help? I would not. And I don’t think that Apple should have either, given the particular situation. Of course, it’s their right to refuse, unwise though I believe it to have been, and I applaud their intransigence once the court order was issued.
You may find this strange but I applaud Apple for their refusal to be compelled and chide them for not helping in the first place, resulting in a court order.
Apple should have, IMHO, stepped forward and said, “Let us see if we can unlock that for you.” Apple, the Good Citizen, should have helped while putting out a statement that they respect their customers’ privacy, but the guilt of this phone’s user is not in question.
Save the intransigence for when law enforcement makes a frivolous request.
Blindly protecting the privacy of a known terrorist, as part of some “we protect all our users’ privacy” policy is not, IMO, smart. To prevent losing their criminal and terrorist customers, Apple has alienated a great many ordinary, honest citizens who want the terrorists unmasked.