The legal battle between the U.S. government and Apple over the contents of an accused terrorist's iPhone is being called the most important privacy case in years, and Apple CEO Tim Cook's decision to defy a court order has brought down a global spotlight on the case. As Engadget summarizes:
The iPhone 5c belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, the man behind the San Bernardino terror attack that left 14 dead, is in the hands of the FBI. It could -- potentially -- contain information about the shooting, including the names and contact information of other terrorists. The handset might even contain evidence of other planned attacks. But the FBI isn't sure, because Farook's iPhone, like many devices, has a passcode. That numerical PIN is now at the center of one the most important privacy debates in recent memory.
The government asked Apple to help the FBI access the contents of the phone, later following up with a court order when Apple refused to cooperate. CEO Tim Cook took to Apple's site on Wednesday to voice his opposition. In an open letter, Cook said that the order "has implications far beyond the legal case at hand."
Cook's firmly worded letter makes it plain that Apple finds the FBI's request chilling and completely out of bounds:
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
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.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: 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.
Analysis: No Easy Answers
Coverage of the case isn't likely to slow down anytime soon, and the immediacy it has for so many Americans, given it involves the iPhone, should spur a sustained public debate over privacy like the country hasn't had since the domestic surveillance revelations from Edward Snowden.
There are a number of important angles to consider, says Constellation Research VP and principal analyst Steve Wilson.
For example, "there are various theories that one, the FBI and other agencies can hack more or less any crypto they like and two, that Apple has backdoors already but keep quiet," he says. Regardless of these theories, both Apple and FBI may want to go all the way to the Supreme Court if possible, Wilson adds.
"The FBI wants to set a precedent so they can continue to get searches like this done, " he says. "Apple probably doesn't have backdoors; and by getting to court they will be exonerated on that important position, even if they lose the case."
Wilson isn't taking sides in the case. "I see the merits of the FBI's argument that this is merely a reasonable search being conducted on a piece of property," he says. "But civil libertarians are rightly worried about the precedent and the prospect of a permanent sort of backdoor being designed in."
There are serious problems with cryptographic backdoors, Wilson adds. For one thing, "they allow new ways for criminals to breach peoples' devices," he says. They can also systematically weaken crypto algorithms and thirdly, set the scene for government overreach.
"This episode certainly demonstrates Apple's commitment to privacy," Wilson concludes. "They're playing a high-stakes game. They set a high standard for themselves and seem to be sticking to it."
Reprints
Reprints can be purchased through Constellation Research, Inc. To request official reprints in PDF format, please contact Sales.