​Uncle Sam should not read your texts

At the end of last year, California saw the deadliest terror attack on American soil since September 11 in the mass shooting and attempted bombing of San Bernardino. In the aftermath of this tragedy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked Apple last month to assist in a brute-force attack on the passcode to gunman Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone. Apple pointedly refused in a letter from CEO Tim Cook. The Justice Department obtained a judicial order requiring Apple to design the software needed for this kind of entry. Apple appealed this motion two weeks ago, and tech giants, law enforcement agencies, activist groups and private citizens have been taking sides on whether the government can burden Apple in this way. As a follow-up to our discussion of attitudes towards privacy last semester, today we are confronted with the question of what gives when data privacy goes up against national security.

In our view, Apple should not be required to break into its own software, opening a Pandora’s box of what would be legal intrusions into the otherwise private data of Americans. To be clear, Apple is not actively withholding information from the FBI. The company is declining to create new software in the form of a custom iOS that would bypass the limits on guessing mobile passcodes. It is declining to develop software that would allow easy intrusion to the Apple devices owned by one-quarter of American cell phone owners.

Apple is not obstructing the implementation of a vital national security measure in this case. The Stuxnet virus used in 2010 to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program demonstrates that the government can and will disrupt the technological abilities of targets. Further, the San Bernardino case does not seem to concern any kind of immediate threat. It is neither a ticking time bomb nor an urgent hostage scenario. Instead, it is believed that there “may be” relevant communications that is only on the iPhone itself. Given the existence of open-source online encryption systems such as Cryptocat, it seems unlikely that ISIS-supported terrorists would communicate via phones that they know belong to the county government.

If the court order is not vacated, the government is able to order similar software to be developed in future cases with different companies. This debate, featuring Apple, has brought data privacy into the public eye, and the legal case around it could define precedent for future privacy breaches by our executive branch. Our Constitution is framed upon a belief that the law is meant to protect its citizens and the innocent. If the government prevails, law can be used to invade digital privacy like never before. As we wrote in October, Americans ought to form and closely inspect their views on the real and digital privacy rights of citizens. Remaining complacent here could be dangerous. There are representatives and senators to write to and articles to be read in order to stay informed on how the world has changed since smartphones became such commonplace utilities in just the last several years. To borrow a phrase from the late Justice Scalia, the proud men who authored our Constitution would not have turned out their pockets for royal inspection.