The estimated reading time for this post is 6 minutes
The legal world and the tech world are colliding in a controversy that may affect the way that smartphones are used and criminal investigations are conducted in the future. This issue raises questions of law enforcement and technology, the answers to which will affect our privacy, safety and security, no matter which side wins.
The issue arose after the FBI began to investigate the shootings by Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik in San Bernardino, California last December that killed 14 people and wounded 22 others.
As part of the criminal investigation into the shootings, the FBI recovered an iPhone that was used by Farook. That iPhone is owned by Farook’s employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which has given the FBI permission to access the data on the phone.
The FBI has retrieved some data from the iPhone by accessing Farook’s iCloud account, though the latest back up occurred on October 19, 2015, about six weeks before the shooting. But the FBI wants access to all data on the phone to conduct a thorough investigation. Neither the FBI nor Apple knows whether any relevant information exists on the phone.
On February 16, 2016, a court order was issued, requiring Apple to cooperate with the FBI’s investigation of the San Bernardino attack. After that order was issued, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, issued a statement saying that Apple would not comply with that order.
Why the FBI Can’t Access Data on the iPhone
The FBI needs Apple’s help to access data on Farook’s phone. Since iOS 8 was launched in September 2015, the iPhone has offered an auto-erase setting that users can enable that will automatically erase all data from the phone after 10 failed attempts to enter a passcode. This security feature is designed to protect data from being stolen by someone in possession of the phone.
[tip]To enable this feature on your iPhone, go to Settings => Touch ID & Passcode => Erase Data On [/tip]
Without this auto-erase feature, someone could continuously try to guess the passcode until the phone was unlocked with the correct one, giving access to data on the phone.
If the FBI were to enter the passcode incorrectly 10 times, all data on the iPhone would be permanently erased.
What Does the FBI Want From Apple?
The FBI wants to conduct a thorough investigation of the crime, including discovering the data on Farook’s iPhone. According to James Comey, Director of the FBI, “We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That’s it.”
Essentially, the FBI wants Apple to disable the auto-erase feature on Farook’s iPhone. The FBI has not asked Apple to provide the FBI with software that disables the auto-erase feature. Instead, the FBI has stated that Apple can retain sole possession of the software after the auto-erase feature has been disabled.
According to Comey, this investigation “is about the victims and justice. Fourteen people were slaughtered and many more had their lives and bodies ruined. We owe them a thorough and professional investigation under law. That’s what this is. The American people should expect nothing less from the FBI.”
Why Apple Is Fighting the Court Order
Apple is disputing the court order granting FBI’s request to disable the auto-erase feature from Farook’s iPhone. Apple says that the software to disable the auto-erase feature doesn’t exist and that it shouldn’t be forced to create the software.
Apple CEO Cook published A Special Message to Our Customers explaining Apple’s position. “Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”
While the FBI says that this is an isolated case, Apple disagrees. “Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”
Police departments around the US have locked iPhones they would like unlocked with Apple’s assistance to help them solve crimes.
Apple is concerned that once this software is created, the company could be forced to use it repeatedly, perhaps by hostile foreign governments or criminals. Cook has stated, “Once the process is created, it provides an avenue for criminals and foreign agents to access millions of iPhones. And once developed for our government, it is only a matter of time before foreign governments demand the same tool.”
In an interview with ABC News, Cook pointed out how much information people keep on their phones. “There’s probably more information about you on your phone than there is in your house. Our smartphones are loaded with our intimate conversations, our financial data, our health records. They’re also loaded with the location of our kids, in many cases. So it’s not just about privacy, it’s about public safety.”
Another fear of Apple’s is that the government could then force companies to create surveillance software that doesn’t currently exist. Apple argues, “For example, if Apple can be forced to write code in this case to bypass security features and create new accessibility, what is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone’s user? Nothing.”
Apple has cooperated with the FBI to a certain extent. In his letter to customers Cook said, “Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.”
The FBI’s Response to Apple’s Claims
The FBI acknowledges Cook’s claim in his letter to customers that Apple would be required to create new software, but argues that Apple is the only company who is able to write this software.
The FBI says that their request relates exclusively to Farook’s iPhone and that it is not asking Apple to hand over the software to the FBI. “Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the Order have been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple, and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without valid court orders.”
Apple’s claim that the software, once created, could fall into criminal hands is also disputed by the FBI. “No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the Order unless Apple chose to share it.”
The FBI also challenges Apple’s claim that the request violates privacy rights, pointing out that “the former user of the phone is dead and no longer has any expectation of privacy in the phone and the owner of the phone consents both to the search of the phone and to Apple’s assistance.”
The Next Steps
On March 1 the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee will begin holding a hearing on the issue. The judicial hearing on the legal case is scheduled for March 22.
As this dispute involves public and personal safety, privacy rights and the future of technology, expect much continued discussion and legal proceedings in the months and years to come.
Poll
Do you believe that Apple should be forced to disable the auto-erase feature to allow the FBI to access data from the iPhone? Vote in the poll to share your opinion.
Your Thoughts
Have you been following the Apple vs. FBI dispute? What are your thoughts about technology vs. criminal investigations? Which side do you support? Can you see both sides?
Share your thoughts in the Comments section below!
Harleena Singh says
Hi Carolyn,
Interesting topic of discussion! 🙂
While I still have to go through the links and details of the story mentioned above, I would go with Apple’s version – they don’t have to have the auto-erase feature – nor should they be forced to create the software for the drawback this feature could have, as Cook mentioned.
However, even the FBI has their point, and in the particular mentioned case, I wonder if they can create the software just for this one issue and then remove it, I don’t think so, we would just have to wait and watch.
Thanks for sharing. Have a nice week ahead 🙂
Carolyn Nicander Mohr says
Hi Harleena, Yes, Apple has strong arguments, including how far a government agency should be able to go in its criminal investigation. If Apple were forced to create software that doesn’t currently exist, then what other software could it be forced to create?
If this software disabling auto-erase were to get into the hand of criminals then our phones certainly would no longer be secure. But perhaps Apple could disable the auto-erase feature, then delete the software from the phone, while having the phone in its possession, then delete the software. In this way, Apple could maintain custody of the software, lessening the chances that it would be used by criminals.
But then would Apple have to do this for every phone involved in investigations all over the world? Would that be too much of a burden on a company?
There are many issues to be faced here as technology has outpaced legislation. We will have to see how this case progresses through the courts and through US Congress.
Carlo Capozzoli says
In my humble opinion, Apple just wants to make the point that nobody, not even the U.S.
Govt. can tell them what to do.
BTW, I just activated the “erase all” feature on my iPhone.
Carlo
Carolyn Nicander Mohr says
Hi Carlo, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Yes, people who side with the FBI wonder why Apple shouldn’t be forced to cooperate with the investigation.
Did you have a chance to vote in the poll? The results are interesting so far…
davor bechich says
Hi,,, create the software for FBI and ceep deniing it publicly,,,,,,,,
Carolyn Nicander Mohr says
Hi Davor, Great point, Apple could have created the software and cooperate with the FBI without letting anyone know. But Apple chose not to cooperate and now the dispute is public. We can all wait and see what happens with this case in the US. Regardless of the outcome in the US, other countries may also try to get Apple to create software that disables the auto-erase feature. It will be interesting to see what happens with this issue worldwide.
Ikechi says
Hi Carolyn
Both parties have a strong point. It is really difficult to say who is right and wrong. Apple is protecting people’s privacy and the FBI is protecting people.
Let us watch and see what happens in the court.
Carolyn Nicander Mohr says
Hi Ikechi, Yes, both sides have compelling arguments. Apple says they want to protect security and privacy while the FBI wants to provide safety and solve crimes. This discussion will last over months and years and will be fascinating to follow.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, Ikechi!
Adrienne says
Hey Carolyn,
I’ve been trying to get over here for awhile now to read this post. Wow…
Okay, I’m siding with Apple on this one and I like what you said to Harleena in your comment. That Apple can have control of the phone and do that in house so that they have control over the phone and the contents. At the same time I understand that the FBI would like to find out more about this couple and help those family members who lost loved ones. I have a feeling though this will never be the end. There will be more things happen in the future and more instances like this.
If what they want Apple to do can jeopardize us down the road in some way then I say hell no. There has to be a way that they can figure this out without having to create anything new. Again, they put this in place for a reason and that’s so that no one can get their hands on what’s legally ours.
Thanks for reporting about this and I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
~Adrienne
Laurie says
I can see both sides – one the FBI wants to see if there is any additional data that is relevant to their case, however Apple thinks there is only so far they should have to go to comply. This is a very interesting case for sure, I am very curious as to how it will turn out. Thanks for sharing!