FBI–Apple encryption dispute
The FBI–Apple encryption dispute was a significant legal conflict that arose following the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack, where the FBI sought to unlock an iPhone 5C belonging to one of the shooters. The FBI argued that accessing the phone was crucial for investigating potential terrorist networks, while Apple, led by CEO Tim Cook, contended that complying would compromise user privacy and create a dangerous precedent. Apple's refusal to create a backdoor to its encryption sparked a national conversation about the balance between individual privacy and national security.
In early 2016, the FBI escalated the situation by seeking a court order to force Apple to assist in unlocking the device, leading to public hearings where both sides presented their arguments. Throughout the discourse, Apple maintained that the software required would effectively be a “master key,” risking the security of millions of users. Ultimately, the FBI found a third party to unlock the phone, leading to the withdrawal of its court request against Apple. The dispute highlighted deep concerns regarding privacy rights, technology's role in security, and the ethical responsibilities of tech companies in the digital age.
FBI–Apple encryption dispute
The FBI-Apple encryption dispute was a legal debate between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the technology company Apple Inc. over the issue of whether US courts could force technology firms to unlock devices that had been encrypted to protect users' data. The dispute began in the wake of the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack, in which two shooters killed fourteen people before being killed by police.
The FBI later obtained the Apple iPhone 5C of one the shooters and attempted to convince Apple to create the software needed to unlock it so the government could examine its data. Apple refused this request, arguing that such software could be used by the US government or stolen by hackers to access the data of any iPhone in the world, putting the personal privacy of millions of users at risk.
The two sides argued their cases in congressional hearings throughout February and March of 2016. In late March, the FBI withdrew its request after it announced it had employed a third party to unlock the shooter's phone. The dispute generated a larger conversation in the United States about the relationship between personal privacy and national security.
Background
The legal battle between the FBI and Apple arose in the aftermath of a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, on December 2, 2015. That day, a married couple began shooting people at a Christmas party in a conference center, killing fourteen and wounding twenty-two. Police pursued and killed the shooters later that day. The federal government identified the shooting as a terrorist attack, as evidence emerged showing the shooters had been planning an attack on the United States since before they were engaged.
Days after the incident, the FBI secretly acquired the Apple iPhone 5C of the male shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook. The FBI planned to access the phone to glean potential data on the shooters, their plot, and anyone they may have contacted before or after the attack. The FBI claimed that doing this was vital to its investigation into whether the shooters were part of a larger terrorist network that was planning more attacks on Americans.
The FBI soon encountered a major setback in this effort. Farook's iPhone 5C had been locked with a four-digit password. As was standard on iPhones of this generation, ten failed attempts at guessing the password would automatically erase all the encrypted data on the phone. Additionally, the FBI could not bypass this feature due to the 256-bit advanced encryption standard (AES) used to protect data on this particular model of iPhone. AES is known for being extremely complex and nearly impossible to break; supercomputers would need hundreds of billions of years to guess the algorithms required to overcome this encryption.
The FBI then asked Apple to create software that would allow it to unlock Farook's phone. Apple chief executive officer (CEO) Tim Cook vehemently refused to comply with this request. He claimed that such software would be extremely dangerous because it would allow the US government and any other actors who acquired it to access any iPhone in the world. Cook claimed this would violate the privacy of iPhone users by exposing their data to potentially anyone.
The administration of President Barack Obama eventually joined the discussion. From December of 2015 to January of 2016, administration lawyers spoke privately with lawyers from Apple, trying to convince the company to aid the FBI's investigation. Apple continued to refuse.
As a result, the US Department of Justice requested in mid-February of 2016 that federal magistrate judge Sheri Pym of the US District Court for the Central District of California order Apple to bypass its own security system to unlock Farook's iPhone. Apple maintained its stance, setting off what would become a highly publicized legal dispute lasting more than a month.
Impact
Cook responded to the court order a day later in a letter to Apple customers. In it, he rejected the court's request that Apple create software to break into the phone. He also encouraged iPhone customers to support personal privacy by opposing the FBI in this matter.
Federal prosecutors in the case saw Apple's argument as weak. They believed the company was not as concerned about protecting customer privacy as it was about reinforcing its public brand and business model. Prosecutors also stated that the court order and the Obama administration had claimed that Apple would be able to choose the extent to which it aided the FBI in unlocking the phone, and the company would be allowed to keep and destroy the software it created to do so. Still, Cook insisted that the technology necessary to bypass Farook's iPhone 5C security would be nothing short of a master key that governments or hackers could acquire and use to break into the iPhones of millions of people.
On February 25, 2016, FBI director James Comey argued at a House Intelligence Committee hearing in Congress that he did not believe the software he wanted Apple to create would become a weapon for violating privacy. He said it would be used to unlock only the attacker's iPhone. On March 1, Comey and Bruce Sewell, Apple's senior vice president of legal and government affairs and general counsel, appeared at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, where they restated their positions. Another hearing was then scheduled for March 21 in a California federal court.
In the interim, the FBI petitioned technology companies and hackers from around the world to help it unlock Farook's iPhone. In mid-March, an unidentified company contacted the FBI with a potential solution. The FBI postponed its March 21 hearing to meet with the company about possibly unlocking the phone. At the end of March, the FBI announced it had successfully unlocked the phone and no longer needed Apple's help. The FBI immediately withdrew its federal court request against Apple.
Following the conclusion of the case, Apple stated that it had adhered to its principle of not violating the public's civil rights by cooperating with the US government. The company hoped to learn how the FBI had unlocked the phone so it could improve the security of its products, but the FBI confirmed it would not reveal this information, mostly because it did not own the rights to the technology. Comey continued to defend the position that absolute personal privacy in all matters would negatively affect public safety.
Bibliography
"Apple vs. the FBI: A Complete Timeline of the War over Tech Encryption." Digital Trends, 3 Apr. 2016, www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/11/. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
"Breaking Down Apple's iPhone Fight with the U.S. Government." The New York Times, 21 Mar. 2016, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/03/technology/apple-iphone-fbi-fight-explained.html?‗r=0. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
Dave, Paresh. "Apple Wants the FBI to Reveal How It Hacked the San Bernardino Killer's iPhone." The Los Angeles Times, 29 Mar. 2016, www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-next-steps-20160330-story.html. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
Kharpal, Arjun. "Apple vs FBI: All You Need to Know." CNBC, 29 Mar. 2016, www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
Lichtblau, Eric, and Katie Benner. "Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's iPhone." The New York Times, 17 Feb. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
"San Bernardino Shooting Updates." The Los Angeles Times, 9 Dec. 2015, www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
Thomas, Pierre, and Mike Levine. "How the FBI Cracked the iPhone Encryption and Averted a Legal Showdown with Apple." ABC News, 29 Mar. 2016, abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-cracked-iphone-encryption-averted-legal-showdown-apple/story?id=38014184. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
Yadron, Danny. "FBI Confirms It Won't Tell Apple How It Hacked San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone." The Guardian, 28 Apr. 2016, www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/27/fbi-apple-iphone-secret-hack-san-bernardino. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.