Should Apple create a backdoor for the FBI?

Apple and the FBI have been locked in a fierce battle recently over the unlocking of an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino attackers. The FBI want Apple to create software to allow them to unlock the phone, but Apple have refused. Should Apple comply with the FBI? Two Boar writers go head-to-head.

Reece Goodall says YES:

In San Bernardino, December last year, a couple murdered 14 people and injured 22 others in a terrorist attack, eventually killed in a shootout with police. Investigating the couple, the FBI have come up against a barrier – they’ve recovered one of the shooter’s work phones, but it is cryptographically protected. Despite appeals and court orders, Apple refuse to unlock the phone or create any software that would allow the FBI to do so, citing security risks to their customers that would stem from the creation of a backdoor.

The SUV of the perpetrators of the San Bernardino shootings. Image: San Bernardino Sheriff;s Department / Wikimedia Commons

I’m of the view that Apple is putting its prestige over any form of safety, and refusing to help the law here is simply unfair on survivors, the families of the injured and the dead. The fact is clear here that a terrorist attack has been committed and, despite a judge ruling that Apple can create a malware to destroy their backdoor, the company simply refuses to aid in the investigation. It could even turn out worse – the FBI think there is a chance that the names of other conspirators are listed on the phone. If they’re right, and Apple’s stubbornness means another massacre happens, the company will have blood on its hands.

A company sitting on its high horse should not get in the way of the law

The case has raised questions about how far manufacturers should be compelled to assist in unlocking phones, and while I certainly don’t agree in the idea of all phones having backdoors that would give the authorities unprecedented levels of access, crime is a different story. A company sitting on its high horse should not get in the way of the law and protecting people’s lives.

John Butler says NO:

In times such as these, in which our societies are threatened by forces that are seemingly beyond our control, it’s an understandable reaction to take any steps in order to protect ourselves from this omnipresent danger.

The case centres around the unlocking of an iPhone. Image: kelvinsong / Wikimedia Commons

The issue is that by taking these steps, this protection is gained at the price of the liberties and freedoms that are consistently cited as the dividing line between our principles and those wishing to do us harm. It simply ends in the destruction of the very thing we are looking to safeguard.

Although the San Bernardino attack was an abhorrent act upon innocent civilians, forcing a technology company to corrupt its own products will neither help those directly affected, nor improve the security of the public. The FBI basically want a master key to allow them to unlock any iPhone. Once such a master key has been made it would be incredibly naïve to believe there would be true impartial control over it; governments across the world could command its use against their own people, and the terrorist organisations it is built to fight against could wield it for their own ends.

It simply ends in the destruction of the very thing we are looking to safeguard

If that weren’t enough, the legal case that the FBI is using to substantiate its arguments is a law called the All Writs Act, originating from 1789 and passed in its current form in 1911. This is effectively a legal safety net that allows the courts to order people to do things in extraordinary circumstances when there isn’t any law or statute covering the issue. The problem is that the current situation is covered by something called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1992, so by attempting to invoke the All Writs Act the FBI are effectively trying to bypass the legislation currently in force. Should a government agency really have authority over a democratically elected congress?