It was not too long ago when the average person did not concern themselves with thoughts of how secure their personal data was. However, due to recent events and government interaction, the average person in society today has become increasingly aware of the security regarding their personal information. While there are dozens of memorable and notable events in recent history, there is one event that some consider a cornerstone in the foundation of today’s discussions regarding this sensitive topic. Just two years ago this month, a terrorist attack took place in San Bernardino, California that claimed the lives of fourteen innocent civilians. During the F.B.I. crime scene investigation following the incident, an iPhone was recovered and deemed evidence that was crucial to the investigation. Shortly after recovery of the phone, the F.B.I. sought out help from Apple, the phones manufacturer, requesting a program be made so that government organizations may access such devices and bypass the security locks in the pursuit of justice, Apple did not comply with their request. Apple refusing to assist the government in the creation of this program was a responsible decision due to the fact that it was necessary to defend the security of all active Apple phones in existence today, that they could not rightfully compromise their proprietary security system, that the F.B.I. did not have the legal rights to demand such a program, and that the government as a whole does not need such a universal tool free to use at their own discretion. 

Though this whole case revolved around the issue of a “simple” four-digit passcode, the potential ramifications go far beyond anything that can be considered simple. Apple’s rejection set off an extensive legal and moral debate as to if the company should unlock the phone and help the F.B.I. with the investigation of the attack. This would seem like a clean cut yes however, by unlocking the phone, Apple would have violated the very idea of security and trust of their entire customer base, and with that the security and information of millions of tax paying citizens. These issues of the infringement on telecommunications date back to the creation of such devices, for as long as there are rules there has been rule breakers. Society puts their faith in the government and the various organizations that comprise it to solve these issues and defend against the rule breakers. This case ventures into the dangerous and always controversial arena of how much government interaction is too much, a debate that always ends up with lines being drawn in the sand. 

One of the first recorded incidents of a telecommunications breach was during a 1933 congressional oversight hearing on, ironically, the integrity of telephone networks. Sources say, “A security researcher used an analog phone to broadcast the conference to any device in a nearby room”(Pell). Though there were no laws prohibiting this activity or regarding the use of such technology in existence at the time, the breach forced congress to act. The eventual repercussion was that “Congress outlawed the sale of radio scanners capable of intercepting cellular signals”(Pell); it would be quite some time until those laws came to play a prominent role within society. Fast forward sixty-four years to 1997, infractions regarding telecommunications and devices related to such activities became much more persistent. In order to defend against these attacks and breaches, laws were quickly being written and passed in order to prosecute these criminals by. Such laws specifically were passed “banning the sale of scanning equipment capable of intercepting cellular signals”(Pell), yet as always, the passage of such laws did not stop people from trying and disobeying them. These continued attempts to gain access to people’s private information are what make cyber security and information defenses, such as pass codes, a relevant issue in the use and development of such technology today. 

Apple, currently the most valuable company in the world, was founded on the idea to “think different”(Domonoske). Their founder Steve Jobs is considered by many to be a pioneer and iconic innovator in the field of cellular devices and technology surrounding them. People have always wanted to, and always will find was to modify electronic devices, both for better and worse. This issue of villainous people has always and will always be an issue. This issue is something that we as a society with the help of our government combat every day. This does not mean that civil liberties can be violated in the pursuit of justice, aka the ends justify the means. If this idea were followed constantly, there would be chaos as people and government bodies promise that in then end their actions would be justified. Apple should not be forced to bear the burden of this overarching question of if the ends justify the means and when is it right to help and when it is not right to help. Apple is a private company with incentives not to release anything that would compromise the hard work of its employees or the value of their brand. In essence, the F.B.I. asking Apple for their help on this issue can be extrapolated to the government asking a private company to lie and disrespect their own patrons. The concept of loyalty and trust are ideas that the modern commerce system is built on, and that could largely be considered more valuable than a single F.B.I. case. 

In addition to the intangible assets that Apple owns, there are also tangible assets that come into question in this case. Apple has spent the last decade and millions, possibly billions, of dollars developing their security systems to make it some of the most advanced software in the world. If a tool were to be made that circumvents all these efforts, then who is to compensate Apple for these wasted resources? Representatives of Apple has been quoted as saying, “The Founders would be appalled if they gave away years of work in a flash”(Domonoske), and I think most people would agree with them. While a four-digit passcode may not seem that difficult to guess, mathematically it has over ten-thousand combinations and a six digit passcode has up to 2.17 billion different combinations making it near impossible to penetrate. As if the staggeringly large count of possibilities was not enough, there are other features such as time delays for too many incorrect guesses and even a feature that would erase all the data on the device after so many failed attempts. Developers within Apple never even created such a program for themselves and have been quoted as saying, “Only the creator of the passcode knows what the passcode is, and there’s no way to get around that.(Cook)” This so-called “missing tool” was purposefully never created to protect their own work and ensure that even the possibility of such technology being misused was not even a possibility. Years of dedication, countless hours of work, and incalculable amounts of resources have been poured into protecting the enormous amount of information that users trust into their devices each day. With the creation of this tool, this would all be for nothing and peoples trust in Apple, and the security that Apple provides to its customers, would be destroyed. 

The creation of this program could also be considered a violation of rights. This idea to privacy is granted by the U.S. constitution in the fourth amendment, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” If the F.B.I. were to have, access to a tool that allows access to all Apple phones this amendment would be infringed upon. The very ideas of our founding fathers and all American governments that have held up these rights throughout history would be violated and overwritten if we simply stray from the rules due to new technology. Access to this tool would allow access to everything, regardless of if a person has or does not have the phone in their possession. The government, and anyone the government allows access to, would be able to unlock it be able to see anything the phone has been used for such as text, photos, phone calls, internet traffic, app usage, and even fingerprints from the scanner. If the government feels there needs to be a change to the rules, there are processes in which they can begin to adjust. However, a single case and immediate request for a large and dangerous tool seem to be unthinking reactions that are certainly not within the current U.S. laws and regulations governing what organizations such as the F.B.I. can do. People have faith in the system for a reason. The system has been thought out, designed, vetted, and executed over time. If we are to suddenly undo this system that has taken so long to build, where does it stop? Will people begin to question if the F.B.I. is following rules at all? Perhaps old cases, cases that were settled based upon information gained via telecommunications. 

Even if, the fourth amendment was not enough to defend against this issue, the ninth amendment declares that the fact that a right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the government can infringe on that right. This specific section of legal doctrine has been debated since the day it was written, but the idea applies just as heavily in this case as it does in any other. Like the issue in 1933, the government is lagging behind the times. Questions such as the San Bernardino case will continue to come into question and a legal precedent will be set by this one specific case.  Following this idea, Apple’s refusing to cooperate was not illegal as there was no legal precedent surrounding it. Coupling this with the idea of the ninth amendment, the FBI cannot legally force Apple, or any company for that matter, to cooperate if there is no current law in place. 

In a perfect world, the program would stay in the right hands and never be misused. The idea of when and how it should be used are a matter of opinion. Opinions are relative to each person. People of this country should be able to have faith in their governing bodies and defenders of the law, but whistle blowers, such as Edward Snowden, have proved that even in government control matters can get quite grey and information can be abused and stolen. The F.B.I. is a very professional organization who, by law, are entitled to some legal corporation from U.S. companies. The rejection was such a rare and not thought of possibility that everyone was so surprised when it happened. As stated previously, Apple felt that the government was attacking and trying to take away their own power by how the F.B.I. approached the situation. The F.B.I. began asking for this program with the help of the All Writs Act of 1789, which is a legitimate law that covers this issue, however numerous sources say they were found to be, “stretching the law far wider than the Constitution and the lawmakers have intended for it to go," as well as asking for something “unreasonable and unlawful”(Alina). For example, “Congress has never authorized judges to compel innocent third parties to provide decryption services to the F.B.I.”, but when it comes to a multi-million dollar company that produces just under half of the world’s devices the Government swiftly requested the program. Yes, it was for evidence involved in a terroristic case, yes, the government and F.B.I. should be respected, but the question remains, is such an invasive tool needed for a single investigation? Most people would agree, unlock the phone, so why not give it to apple and let them unlock this single device? It boils down to a matter of principle, principles which Apple, and others, seek to defend from anyone that wishes to intrude. 

Even though the program was never created, the inevitable outcome of unlocking the phone was accomplished. The government funded an undisclosed third party to work on this case and figure out a way into the device. Nobody knows how long it took them, how they accomplished the goal, or who has control of the tool now. We do know that the method they used only works on select Apple models, including the model of the shooters phone. However, there are over 700 million iPhones and about 300 million other Apple devices such as laptops, tablets, and smart watches active today, which works out to be 43% of all the active cellular devices in the world being an Apple product. Each phone has the ability to hold at least sixteen gigabytes of information, which is enough space to store anything you could ever want to know about someone along with a decent amount of information on their friends, family, and coworkers, which is also tied into that data and begs the question of collateral damage. If this program is to fall into the wrong hands or be misused, the potential damages that could occur cannot be fathomed. Nowadays many if not all devices from the same company are connected sharing information between each other for the convenience of the user. Several other companies such as, “Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Intel,”(Alina) have supported Apple and in attempting to get the world to understand the potential dangers and were even at risks involved in this issue. The formerly mentioned companies have even been recalled as saying it could have been themselves in the spotlight if this program got into the wrong hands meaning it is not an Apple issue. Regardless, unlocking the phone proved two things, the first was that no matter how secure a company designs their systems it can still be hacked into, and two, that forcing Apple to create such a program was unnecessary. 

Security is a necessary element for the human mind to function. We need to know that our possessions, both physical and mental, are secure. Whether it be an actual wall or a digital wall, they both keep people’s personal possessions and information secure. Unfortunately, in today’s world, due to the same battles that we have always been fighting, that wall is getting weaker and smaller every day. Cases like this undermine the foundation that these walls stand on. Even though it could be argued that this particular case could have been helped by the phone being unlocked, the overall consequences resulting from a tool being created and therefore compromising the very idea of any security are disastrous. People no longer trusting companies that are at the foundation of economies, organizations that do far more good than bad would be put into question, public resources would be spent on issues that do not need them, and valuable time would be wasted. Compromises are made every day, whether we like it, agree with it, or even know about it, but it is crucial to have the willingness, that Apple had, to defended and protect these ideas. 
