The FBI v Apple (2024)

The FBI v Apple

Zachary R Zynda

East Carolina University: ICTN 4064

Author Note

Abstract

This ethical issue concerns technological privacy and the government’s ability to access it. There are many different points of view, a main one being that the government should be able to see what terrorists are planning along with other criminals through the help of large tech companies helping them get into the backdoor. Another main point of view is that individuals should have privacy over their own technology, no matter who that individual may be, terrorist or not, everyone should be entitled to keeping their own information private. The final point a view is how far the Government is allowed to reach into forcing tech companies into helping the government out. There is expected to be more cases such as this as the government, tech companies, and individual consumers develop and adapt to new situations.

Keywords:Technology, Government, Terrorist, Privacy, Apple, Consumer, & Ethical

The FBI v Apple

On December 2, 2015 Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik went on a shooting spree at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino California. 14 people were killed and 22 critically injured, but things could have been catastrophically worse because there was a failed bombing that was averted. The two perpetrators were able to flee in an SUV, only to be found four hours later when they were shot and killed during a shoot-out with authorities.

Ethical Issue Involved

During the investigation following a shootout with authorities a few hours later, the FBI found an iPhone belonging to one of the terrorists and wanted to gain access to the password protected phone. The iPhone was set to self-erase all of the data after 10 invalid password attempts. After the FBI failed to break into the phone the Obama administration’s lawyers tried to negotiate with Apple to help the Government gain access into the phone. The negotiations broke down immediately, so the Justice Department got a court order compelling Apple to help the FBI get into the backdoor of the phone.

Apple and its CEO Tim Cook publicly challenged the court order releasing an open public letter which sparked a heated and polarizing national debate between protecting user privacy and maintaining national security. Tim Cook opened the letter with the following statement “Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

Stakeholders Involved

There were multiple individuals and groups involved with this debate from the very beginning. At the forefront was the FBI and Apple, more specifically Timothy Cook the CEO of apple. The President, Barack Obama, and his team of lawyers quickly got involved leading negotiations between Apple and the Government. After failed negotiations the United States Justice Department had to get involved taking the issue to the court system where the courts favored the FBI. Following the court’s decision, other large tech conglomerates got involved siding with Apple, with companies like Google and Facebook leading the charge to defend Apple. This stemmed from potential far reaching consequences of decisions made by the courts at that time.

After several months, the House of Representatives became involved offering arguments to the Justice Department against Apple’s stance of this being Government overreach. The Judiciary Committee called upon Apple and FBI Director Jim Comey to testify in a five-hour-hearing on March 1st, 2016.

The final stakeholder and the most important one was the user himself, which in this case happened to be a terrorist. When looking at this case you have to see the terrorist as an everyday user that is just trying to have their privacy protected just like any one of the other 100 million iPhone users in the United States alone.

Impact of the Ethical Issue

The ethical issue in this case is user privacy and government overreach into that user’s privacy. The government’s attempt to force a tech company to create a back door into a secure product could set a dangerous precedent for future companies. Apples stand against the Government was not just about themselves but also future situations where the Government may attempt some kind of overreach in a similar situation. When this was brought before the Judiciary committee the district attorney of Manhattan stated that he hoped this case would have bearings on all future cases. They were going to use this case if it had been in favor of the Government in all future cases to strong arm tech companies to fall in line and help the Government with no questions asked. Vance was quoted as saying “We should be creating a framework in which there are standards for a court to authorize access to a device.”(Truong, 2016).

The other ethical issue is that a backdoor program, created to unlock one of the most secure phones on the market, could eventually end up in the hands of individuals or groups not authorized to view the data. This would put every iPhone user in the world at risk of having their personal data being compromised.

FBI’s Point of View

To understand any situation fully you need to see it from both sides of the argument. The FBI was smart in how they approached this when it came to the court of public appeal. They focused on the emotions of the public following a terrorist attack on hard working American citizens to get them behind the Government in this case.

The central claim that the Government made was that the legal system protects the private information of citizens, but they should also have the power to gain access to information that prevents and helps prosecutes the criminal activities of individuals, or in this case a terrorist. House Representatives claimed that if Apple would cooperate with the Government on this, they could safeguard the code it would create to get into the backdoor of the iPhone.

The Government also used the media to help its case against Apple and to relay their message to the American people. The media and other critics of Apple accused the company of being unpatriotic for not cooperating. They also accused Apple of trying to protect its brand over the needs of the American people.

When both Apple and the Director of the FBI appeared before the Judiciary Committee Comey brought the Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr who called iOS 8 (operating software at the time for all Apple iPhones) “warrant proof”.He went on to say that criminals take advantage of this fact. “They are quite literally laughing at us, and they are astounded they have a means of communication totally secure from government reach.”(Truong, 2016). To help make his case stronger he brought a recording of a phone conversation that took place between an inmate at Rikers Island and an outside person where the inmate referred to the encryption from iOS 8 as “a gift from god.”. The Government tried to simplify it all when Comey testified “We ae just asking Apple to take the vicious guard dogs away and let us pick the lock.”(Truong, 2016).

Apple’s Point of View

Apple took several approaches when defending its ground against the court’s ruling. When Google and Facebook got involved in Apple’s defense, they cited freedom of speech in this case because after the courts ruled in the 1996 Bernstein v. Department of Justice that computer code was considered speech and that the Government trying to force Apple to write code was against the constitution of the United States, and violating Apple’s first amendment right. This case was a strong footing for apple because the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court stated “that software source code was speech protected by the First Amendment and that the government's regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional”(BERNSTEIN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 1999).This made computer code a form of speech so forcing Apple to write code (speech) was unconstitutional just like it was to force Apple to come out publicly and say something.

The other approach that Apple took was claiming incrementalism, which was a very dangerous, slippery slope that could change the course of this country and private tech companies for years to come. They claimed that in this situation that they understood the Government was behaving ethically by pursuing information on a terrorist that carried out unspeakable acts, but the terrorist was still an American citizen who had rights.If Apple was to help the Government, what would stop them from overreaching in the future when it came to a less serious issue. As a compromise, Apple offered a one-time solution to locate the information on-site at Apple headquarters.The lab would be staffed with its own employees and no government officials would be involved but requested that the Government pay for the cost and resources that would be needed to complete such a project.

The Judiciary Committee had cybersecurity expert Susan Landau come in as a witness to the case where she compared the feature of deleting data after 10 failed attempts to a paper shredder. Congressman Darrell Issa from California took that and asked Manhattan district attorney Vance “Would you ask a shredding company to put paper back together”(Truong, 2016)where the DA’s response was “Of course I haven’t”(Truong, 2016).

IT Relation to the Ethical Issue

The ethical issue relates to IT in multiple ways.For starters, it reassured the firm standing of the 1996 Bernstein v. Department of Justice ruling that stated “computer coding is considered speech in the same way French or German is free speech”(BERNSTEIN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 1999). It also gave all future IT companies, including themselves, a platform to stand on against Government overreach when a similar situation happened in the future. These IT companies can point to this exact moment when Apple defied the court’s ruling and publicly put out a letter giving specific points to why they would not be complying with the ruling.

My Opinion of an Ideal Outcome

I am a big advocate of less Government involvement in the everyday life of American citizens, and this case was very emotional from the start, but we need to look at this case with a clear head. If you removed the emotions of the case you remove the label of terrorist from the shooter, and the individual becomes just another citizen of the United States who broke the law.

Apple CEO Tim Cook stated “The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data.”(Cook, 2016). The Government rebutted this statement saying it would only use the tool created for the San Bernardino phone, but it was later revealed that the Justice Department has a whole line up of iPhones from other cases it wanted to use the tool on if the backdoor was created. The start of “Incrementalism” had already started as stated what would happen by Apple, the Government was chomping at the bit to get their hands on this tool created by Apple. If they were able to, what would stop them from using the tool to unlock the iPhone of a marijuana dealer that was arrested and refused to give up the passcode to their phone.

If the FBI was not able to use a 3rd party company to break into the phone it would have almost certainly ended up in front of the Supreme Court where a final ruling, hopefully in favor of Apple, would have set precedents for generations to come.

Conclusion of The FBI v Apple

This case ultimately would have ended up on the docket to be brought before the Supreme Court after appeals from Apple. That ended up not being the case because in late March 2016 the Justice Department withdrew its case stating that with the help of a 3rd party company the FBI was able to break into the phone. The information on the situation was kept confidential, and it was not known specifically what the FBI was able to get from the phone or how the 3rd party company was able to get into the phone. The court system still gave the Government until April 5th, 2016 to resubmit the case to move forward which they did not, so the case was eventually dropped, but as Esha Bhandari said following the drop in lawsuit “From a legal standpoint, what happened in the San Bernardino case doesn’t mean the fight is over”(Benner, 2016).

Summary

This case from the start was very public and multi-faceted. There was the tragedy of the terrorist attack that killed Americans in this country. The Justice Department got a favorable ruling which Apple publicly denied. Letter sent to all of its consumers stirred the pot even more. Then after the house Judiciary committee’s 5-hour hearing all eyes across this country and others were on this case.

This case should have ended up in front of multiple house committees as well as the Supreme Court prior to a final ruling. The IT industry in all aspects has grown significantly faster than the laws have been able to adapt to the changes. Tech companies, consumers privacy, and the Government need rulings like this to set precedent moving forward.

References

Benner, K. (2016, March 28).U.S. Says It Has Unlocked iPhone Without Apple. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/technology/apple-iphone-fbi-justice-department-case.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

BERNSTEIN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 97-16686 (United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit May 06, 1999).

Cook, T. (2016, February 16).A Message to Our Customers.Retrieved from Apple: https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Dame-Boyle, A. (2015, April 16).EFF at 25: Remembering the Case that Established Code as Speech. Retrieved from Electronic Frontier Foundation: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech

Digital Trends Staff. (2016, April 3).Apple vs. the FBI: A complete timeline of the war over tech encryption. Retrieved from Digital Trends: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/

Holst, A. (2019, November 11).iPhone users as share of smartphone users in the United States 2014-2021. Retrieved from Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-population-that-own-a-iphone-smartphone/

J.D., T. D. (2001, October). Kyllo v. United States: Technology Versus Individual Privacy.FBI Law Enforcement, 70(10), 25-32.

Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 584 U.S. __ (2018) (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES April 17, 2018).

Nibler, G. (2016, March 23).FBI enlists mobile forensic firm to crack terrorist’s iPhone. Retrieved from Digital Trends: https://www.digitaltrends.com/digital-trends-live/fbi-enlists-mobile-forensic-firm-to-crack-terrorists-iphone/

Parrish, K. (2016, March 28).FBI drops its fight with Apple over shooter's recovered iPhone 5C. Retrieved from Digital Trends: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/fbi-apple-vacate/

Robert Moser, P. &. (NA).The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy. Retrieved from Ethics Unwrapped: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/fbi-apple-security-vs-privacy

Truong, A. (2016, March 2).The five most colorful moments from the Apple-FBI congressional hearing. Retrieved from Quartz: https://qz.com/629058/the-five-most-colorful-moments-from-the-apple-fbi-congressional-hearing/