Midgarden 1

Alex Midgarden

Professor Nordlie

CSCI 101

24 March 2023

Apple vs FBI Encryption Issue

Introduction

The debate surrounding the FBI vs. Apple encryption issue sparked a nationwide

conversation about the balance between privacy and national security. In 2016, the FBI requested

Apple's assistance in unlocking an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. Apple

declined, stating that it would require the creation of new software that could potentially

compromise the security and privacy of all iPhones. The case sparked a heated debate about the

balance between privacy and security, and the role of tech companies in law enforcement and

government overreach. This paper aims to analyze the FBI vs. Apple encryption issue, argue

why Apple was justified in its refusal, and evaluate the potential impact of the decision on the

digital world.

Background

The shooting that occurred in San Bernardino, California, in 2015 left fourteen people

dead and twenty-two others injured. The FBI recovered an iPhone 5C belonging to one of the

shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook. The FBI then requested Apple's assistance in unlocking the

phone to gather more information regarding the shooting. Apple refused to comply with the

request, citing concerns that creating software to unlock the iPhone would set a dangerous

precedent and could potentially compromise the security of all iPhones. After the shooting in San
 Midgarden 2

Bernardino, the FBI obtained a court order to force Apple to create a new version of its operating

system that would allow the agency to bypass the passcode on the shooter's iPhone. The order

required Apple to create a new tool that would allow the FBI to bypass the security features of

the iPhone and access its contents. Apple initially complied with the request by providing the

FBI with data from the shooter's iCloud backup, but the FBI insisted that it needed access to the

data on the actual device. Apple argued that complying with the order would require the creation

of a new version of its operating system that would undermine the security of all iPhones.

Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, publicly stated that the creation of such software would set a dangerous

precedent that would ultimately undermine the privacy and security of all iPhone users. Cook

also argued that it was not possible to create a backdoor that would only be accessible to the

government and not to hackers or foreign governments. After disagreements between the two

parties, a legal battle began in February 2016 in the United States District Court of New York.

The case sparked a nationwide debate about the balance between privacy and national security.

Supporters of the FBI argued that national security concerns justified the need for Apple to

create the backdoor, while opponents argued that creating such software would compromise the

security of all iPhones and set a dangerous precedent. In the end, the FBI was able to access the

contents of the shooter's iPhone without Apple's assistance. The agency used a third-party vendor

to bypass the passcode on the device. The FBI did not disclose how the vendor was able to

bypass the security features of the iPhone, and it is unclear whether the agency will be able to

use the same method to bypass the security features of other iPhones. It was later found that the

information on the iPhone had no real value to the investigation itself and only had details about

his job.
 Midgarden 3

Discussion

Since its founding, Apple has always been committed to protecting the privacy and

security of its customers. All iPhones are encrypted, meaning that the data on the phone is

protected by a passcode that only the user knows. This encryption ensures that even if someone

were to steal the phone, they would not be able to access the data on it without the passcode.

Apple has always had this as a main selling point for the iPhone and breaking this encryption

would not only break a level of trust with the customer but also remove one of Apple’s core

features. By creating a backdoor to unlock the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, Apple would

have compromised the security of all iPhones. Additionally, creating a backdoor would have

made iPhones vulnerable to cyberattacks. Once a backdoor is created, there is no way to

guarantee that it will not be exploited by hackers. Cybercriminals could potentially use the

backdoor to access the personal data of millions of iPhone users worldwide. Apple's refusal to

comply with the FBI's request was a necessary step in protecting the security and privacy of its

customers. I believe that if Apple was to indeed honor the FBI’s request then it would create a

slippery slope and would lead to other future requests to access secure devices. While I believe

that terrorism is a serious concern, it is not a justification for eroding privacy rights. What I find

the most compelling about this case is that after the FBI had found a way into the iPhone through

other means, they found no real information aiding them in the case with the Los Angeles Times

reporting that "the FBI eventually found that Farook's phone had information only about work

and revealed nothing about the plot." This revelation proves that even if Apple were to give the

FBI a backdoor no useful information would be gained and Apple would be left with a major

security leak.
 Midgarden 4

Apple's code is considered a form of speech and should be protected by the Constitution.

Forcing Apple to create new software to unlock the iPhone would have been a violation of the

company's right to free speech. It would have set a dangerous precedent, allowing the

government to compel companies to create new software to assist in investigations, even if it

potentially compromises the privacy and security of customers. The First Amendment protects

the right to free speech, which includes the right not to speak. The government cannot compel an

individual or company to speak against their will. By forcing Apple to create new software, the

government would have been violating the company's First Amendment rights. This would put

the court case under the United States Free Speech Clause case law.

In a customer letter written by Tim Cook himself, he addressed the many problems that

allowing the government to access the phone could create. He specifically highlighted the threat

to the security of the iPhone if this decision was taken. In the letter, he specifically states that

“Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at

risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.” The letter also brings up an

important point stating how impactful iPhones have become to our everyday lives and how we

store large amounts of personal information from private conversations, passwords, and financial

information. If Apple had complied with the FBI's request, it could have set a precedent for other

companies to follow. The government could potentially compel other technology companies to

create new software to assist in investigations, even if it compromises the privacy and security of

their customers. This could potentially harm the trust that customers have placed in technology

companies to protect their personal data. By refusing to comply with the FBI's request, Apple set

a precedent for other technology companies to follow. It showed that companies should prioritize

the security and privacy of their customers over government requests for assistance in
 Midgarden 5

investigations. I believe that Apple’s choice, in this case, has effectively secured everyone's

smartphone privacy for the future. This also brings up the question of government overreach in

our society. Allowing the government to access our devices without due process or proper

justification undermines the principles of democracy and freedom, and it can lead to misuse of

power, surveillance, and violations of human rights. With a country so dedicated to freedom and

democracy as the United States of America, it is essential to ensure that our privacy is protected

and that the government does not overstep its bounds in the name of security or other reasons.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the FBI vs. Apple encryption issue was a high-profile case that raised

important questions about privacy and national security. I believe that Apple's refusal to comply

with the FBI's request was justified, as creating backdoors could have significant implications

and could potentially compromise the security of millions of iPhone users worldwide. The case

also highlights the importance of protecting the First Amendment rights of technology

companies. The role of government agencies like the FBI is to uphold the law and ensure

national security and I don’t believe that they should have any right to violate the privacy of any

US citizen. While the FBI may have a legitimate interest in preventing criminal activity and

investigating potential threats, it should not have total access to individuals' private data. Privacy

is a fundamental human right that should be protected from undue government intrusion. The

potential risks to privacy, democratic values, and public trust outweigh any potential benefits of

granting the FBI access to private data and that's why I believe that Apple was correct in its

decision to refuse the FBI’s request and I hope that they continue to uphold this policy for the

privacy and safety of all iPhone users.

References

Cook, Tim. “Customer Letter.” Apple, 16 Feb. 2016, https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/.

“FBI–Apple Encryption Dispute.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute.

“United States District Court Eastern District of New York .” IN RE ORDER REQUIRING

APPLE, INC. MEMORANDUM TO ASSIST IN THE EXECUTION OF A AND ORDER

SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED BY THIS COURT, No. 15-mc-1902, 29 Feb. 2016,

https://archive.epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/Orenstein-Order-Apple-iPhone-02292016.pdf.