Apple vs. FBI – PLSC 359: Global Governance

Last week, the FBI announced that Apple refused to access to the perpetrators’ to the San Bernardino attacks iPhones. Apple claims that the request overreaches and will compromise the security off all users if allowed. Numerous prominent Americans have stepped up to offer their ideas on the situation which can be read here :

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-fbi-taking-sides/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iid=obnetwork

Although seemingly an American issue, the problem of technology and enforcing its uses is a growing problem around the globe. Apple is a international actor with stores all over the world and millions of iPhone users. Similarly to Apple, Facebook recently experienced issues with ISIS using the social networking site to attract recruits and communicate.

If Apple allowed for the patrol of apps and Apple technology, governments around the globe could police and monitor terroristic activities. Critics of this make numerous arguments, stating that the technology may fall into the hands of terrorist which would allow terrorist groups to hack into governments. To me, this seems unlikely. In the current case of the San Bernardino attacks, allowing access to cellphones would allow the government insight into any planning or communications used to implement the attacks. For victims and their families, getting more information will help provide closure. Understanding the implications of allowing the government to monitor cell phone usage seems scary and an invasion of privacy, the suspects are no longer here to protect their own privacy. In the case of San Bernardino, I support the government receiving access to private cell phones and social media sites. The government having access to monitor all Americans social media and cell phone usage seems excessive and a waste of money and time. In particular instances when terrorist attacks have been committed it seems appropriate to allow the government access to investigate further.

Casey Nolan says:

February 23, 2016 at 10:52 am

This topic is certainly one that is tough to wrestle with as you are pitting civil liberties against American security. While the individual is no longer around to protect their own privacy, providing the government with the ability to hack into this phone creates a dangerous precedent. While the courts may claim all they want that this case would be a one-off event, knowing that Apple has the capability and the history of allowing access to phones for a court case would be all too tempting for the court system to come back to. It starts a slippery slope of infringing on the right to privacy inherently provided by Apple. While I certainly want Apple to provide information surrounding these terrorist attacks and others that may occur in the future, at what point do we begin to draw the line. My fear is that lesser and lesser crimes will then result in Apple being required to hack an iPhone. Then where will we be?

Alec Silverman says:

February 27, 2016 at 12:09 pm

Hi Maggie,

With all due respect, I have to push back against a point you made in your post.

“In the current case of the San Bernardino attacks, allowing access to cellphones would allow the government insight into any planning or communications used to implement the attacks.”

This is undeniably true – except for in this case. Both shooters destroyed their personal cell phones and computer hard drives far beyond recovery. Both maintained a very low social media presence, with the wife only pledging allegiance to al-Baghdadi on Facebook immediately before the shooting began (This isn’t even completely verified in the present moment). This pair of losers went to great lengths to cover their tracks and maintain a very light digital footprint. The iPhone that the FBI has requested Apple to make an override for was a work phone provided to Farook by his employer. When taking into account the precautions they took in carrying out this attack, I don’t find it a stretch to assume that they would have destroyed this phone as well, should anything of significance be on it.

Aleah Fedorciw says:

March 24, 2016 at 3:05 pm

Now that the trial has been delayed due to the appearance of an “outside party”, I think the question of liberties is once again necessary. If this group is indeed successful in unlocking the phone, like Casey said, it could become difficult to draw the line of what is necessary to view and what is not.

In choosing to postpone the trial, the FBI is putting their faith in this outside group. If successful, it will be interesting to see where this case goes. If Apple does not find out how the phone was unlocked and the group continues to aid the FBI, it could give the US government nearly permanent access into a nearly completely internationally utilized device. If this would occur, the use of this power could either be helpful to delay further attacks or violate privacies around the world.

Rohan Dalal says:

April 4, 2016 at 1:03 am

The question that arises in my opinion from this post, is whether governmental surveillance is necessary for public safety ? While Apple and sections of the public may not want such access to be permitted by the government, it stands to reason that it might be in the public’s interest to allow such infringements. Highlighting this point, it needs to be stated that not just criminals but also terrorists utilize technology to communicate their goals and execute their actions.
The attacks on Paris, were not merely orchestrated through pre designated plans but rather communicated through cellular devices and gaming device social networks.

I think that the solution to this conundrum, would arise from separation of public safety and public privacy when considering this issue. Although they are both complementary, in this situation by focusing on both we solve neither one, and allow such actors to use technology unfettered to accomplish such actions.