There are so many factors involved in the feud between Apple and the US government that it is pretty hard to try to establish a balanced position. It all began when Apple refused to access one of the phones of a San Bernardino shooter. The question that arises here is why would the tech giant deny help to the FBI regarding such a sensitive case?
On one hand, we have the FBI that feels that they have all the legal authority to require Apple to contribute to the solving of this case. On the other side, one wonders if Apple can actually violate their own security for one phone without affecting others.
To this day, a judge has ruled in favor of the FBI, ordering Apple to help unlock the phone. While this seems like an easy thing to do for Apple, the company is concerned about the precedent that this will set in terms of security for their customers. Apple has decided to fight the decision and CEO Tim Cook expresses that the order sets “an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers.”
When one thinks about the repercussions this might have, as Cook presents it, it might be scarier than one thinks. New York Times technology writer, Farhoo Manjoo describes this outcome perfectly in his Wednesday column. Manjoo says, “Consider all the technologies we think we want….Many will have cameras, microphones and sensors gathering more data, and an ever-more-sophisticated mining effort to make sense of it all. Everyday devices will be recording and analyzing your every utterance and action.”
Manjoo goes on to explain why we should fear the repercussions, “Law enforcement officials and their supporters argue that when armed with a valid court order, the cops should never be locked out of any device that might be important in an investigation.”
The battle between Apple and the authorities continues to rage as all the legal justifications from both sides are placed on the table.