When the news media first started to report heavily on the standoff between the FBI and Apple over unlocking the San Bernardino shooter’s phone, my first impulse was to think, “Why the hell wouldn’t Apple unlock this scumbag’s phone for a pressing terrorism investigation?” Now, after the government announced on Tuesday that an unnamed third party showed them a back door into the iPhone and they dropped their lawsuit against Apple, my original thought was vindicated — but with a host of new questions to answer.
One point that was mentioned but seemingly glossed over in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal’s coverage since the FBI-Apple beef began earlier this year was the potentially time-sensitive information that could be on that phone. Obscured amidst the commentary about privacy and government overreach was the heart of the matter — that the phone could have contained names of co-conspirators or further deadly plans to be carried out.
While all the talking heads on television were yammering away and Tim Cook and Obama were trading verbal jabs, people who might have helped the Farooks with their plotting of the San Bernardino shooting that killed 14 people could have had ample time to flee the country. Or worse yet, they could have carried out follow-up attacks nearby, knowing their identities would not be revealed to the authorities until after a lengthy legal battle. One could reasonably argue, “Well, why would the attackers leave anything of value on their phone anyway, especially the names of co-conspirators?” That’s beside the point. The principle is what is at stake here.
If there’s one thing the massacre in Brussels last week should show us, it’s that in Europe and the United States, living on edge will be “the new normal,” as The Economist put it this week. But the attack took place just a few days after one of the masterminds of the Paris attack, Salah Abdeslam, was captured in Brussels, and the heat was really starting to come down on the heavily Muslim neighborhoods there. Some have called the attacks retribution for Abdeslam’s capture, and some have argued the terrorists moved up a planned attack before they were found by a security apparatus increasingly engaged in Brussels’ Muslim areas. Either way, the tragedy reveals an astonishing flexibility and speed in the Islamic State’s operatives.
If the Brussels terrorists could execute an attack with only a few days notice, we must assume that this is a universal capability of terrorist cells. Thus our counterterrorism and police forces should be afforded the tools to be at least equally as nimble as these groups that are by default a step ahead. If that means in some cases private companies or individuals have to cede some autonomy and privacy to an investigation, then so be it.
Whoa, pump the brakes there, right? I don’t mean that Apple should have by law been compelled to unlock their incredibly important iPhone technology to the federal government for them to use in further criminal investigations. Apple and its various supporters have a perfectly valid argument that the U.S. government having this sort of back door into iPhones is a dangerous precedent and that it would open up the possibility of that sort of technology falling into the wrong hands, which would be catastrophic.
However, I really don’t understand how the national security imperative and public pressure to keep the country safe didn’t compel Apple to let the FBI into this one phone. It is especially puzzling because Apple is not exactly on the cutting edge of cybersecurity for its industry. It is one of very few firms that deals with cloud data or cellular service that doesn’t pay hackers to find flaws in its systems. And now that a third party has found a way into iPhones, I suspect Apple’s security measures will fall under even more scrutiny. What began as Tim Cook’s crusade for privacy and data security is turning into a fiasco. Apple neither protected its data nor complied with a national security investigation.
President Obama likes to cite the fact that more Americans die from falling in bathtubs than of terrorism. Yet this ignores the profound impact that terrorism has on our collective psyche and how successful terrorist attacks so undermine our confidence in government to maintain order. The day after Brussels I took the Metro to work in D.C. and was really kind of nervous about the prospect of an attack — I almost opted to take a cab instead. I knew this was deeply irrational, but there is something about the power of those images of wanton death and destruction after terrorist attacks that shake us to the core.
I sincerely hope Apple and other companies take recent events to heart and see the bad press about Apple as a sign that in these troubled times, national security concerns should be given more weight in their decision-making.
Ian Gustafson is a junior International Studies major from Woodridge, Ill.
