Over the past few months, Apple has found itself in a flurry of legal bouts with the U.S. government regarding data access and privacy of Apple users’ devices. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked Apple for assistance in accessing information from particular devices, such as the iPhone of the San Bernardino killer Syed Farook, since the FBI hoped that GPS data from Farook’s phone will provide them with information regarding who Farook contacted after the shooting and where he traveled immediately after the shooting.
Additionally, the FBI believed that having access to user data in the future will allow them to better combat terrorism as well as more quickly and accurately convict those committing crimes. However, Apple was not willing to comply and has fought a federal court order requiring them to provide access to the FBI. Apple claimed that the order would require its company to create new software to access its devices. Furthermore, Apple claims this is a violation of the first amendment and would expose security holes that could allow governments or unauthenticated users to access private user information in the future.
This older case regarding access to the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone device was dropped since the FBI claims to have accessed the device through third-party methods. However, now the FBI is asking for Apple’s assistance in a Boston case — the FBI wants to access the iPhone of an alleged gang member who pleaded guilty to taking part in a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy last year. While the FBI claims to have accessed the San Bernardino killer’s device previously, they say that the Boston gang member’s device is newer and cannot be accessed by the FBI’s previous successful methods. However, once again, Apple is not buying it. Apple argues that investigators are simply trying to make accessing user information easier for the future.
In the end, it seems that the question comes down to identifying how much of our privacy Apple is willing to sacrifice — is the company eventually going to allow those who are capable of protecting us with the right information to do so?
