What we should learn about security and outrage from the Apple-F.B.I. feud

How much technological assistance should the government be able to compel in an investigation, and at what risk to privacy? On March 1, both Apple executives and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified about this question before the House Judiciary Committee. The hearing continued the unfolding drama of Apple’s objection to a court order in the investigation of the San Bernardino shootings that commanded them to produce a custom version of the iPhone operating system with its security protections disabled, so the F.B.I. can hack into the shooter’s phone.

The underlying dilemma—how to balance the government’s search and surveillance powers against the limits imposed by modern encryption technology—has been with us for a while, and this case will not be the last to raise it. But involving as it does a mass shooting on American soil in which the shooters proclaimed allegiance to the Islamic State, this case presents the starkest contrast between privacy and national security so far encountered.

Advertisement

Hard cases make bad law, however, and outrage combined with fear for safety makes worse law yet. We should step back from the exigencies of a terrorist threat to consider the best policy going forward. Effectively unbreakable encryption is a reality not because of political, business or even technological decisions, but because the underlying mathematics makes it possible and a networked world makes it necessary. There will be a case in the future where no one, not even the phone’s maker, can hack in at all. We should not establish the bad precedent of compelling the production of broken software in order to achieve the very temporary security it might deliver in the present.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
James MacGregor
2 years 4 months ago
RE: "We should not establish the bad precedent of compelling the production of broken software in order to achieve the very temporary security it might deliver in the present." Yes. Maybe we could concentrate instead on defeating our cyber enemies' - China, France, and Russia - ability to hack into classified Government systems.
William Rydberg
2 years 4 months ago
Don't know if anybody caught the video conference clip from the other day wherein Snowdon said that the claim that the FBI are unable to "crack" the Apple Code is b______t? One would think that as a former highly placed Security Consultant, he might have some insight? The major news Media seems to have panned the conference... The Daily beast says that Apple has unlocked phones 70 times before: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html?via=desktop&source=twitter Just wondering...
Cory Blaise
2 years 4 months ago
Should the FBI release the San Bernardino surveillance video?? Surveillance Cameras are scattered across the entire property. Apple wants to verify the official story.

Advertisement

The latest from america

So what does it matter what a celibate woman thinks about contraception?
Helena BurnsJuly 20, 2018
Former US President Barack Obama gestures to the crowd, during an event in Kogelo, Kisumu, Kenya, Monday, July 16, 2018. (AP Photo Brian Inganga)
In Johannesburg, Obama gave what some commentators consider his most important speech since he vacated the Oval Office.
Anthony EganJuly 20, 2018
With his "Mass," Leonard Bernstein uses liturgy to give voice to political unease.
Kevin McCabeJuly 20, 2018
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, arrives for the Jan. 6 installation Mass of Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)
Women often “bring up the voice of those who are the most vulnerable in our society,” says Hans Zollner, S.J., who heads the Centre for Child Protection in Rome.