Apple v. FBI

Following a terrorist attack that occured in San Bernadino, CA, in December of 2015, police investigations recovered the work-issued mobile device of one of the perpetrators, an iPhone 5C. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) requested the makers of the iPhone 5C, multinational technology company Apple Inc., to implement and verify new software that would allow the FBI to unlock the recovered device. Apple, however, refused this request, stating that the creation of this software would undermine the security of its products, which was against their company policy. The FBI, believing that there could be important evidence stored within the iPhone, successfully applied to issue a court order to direct Apple to create the software. Apple announced its intent to oppose the order, again due to the security risks it would pose to its customers. A hearing was set for late March of 2016, with the case being popularly referred to as “Apple v. FBI.”

Background

On December 2, 2015, a mass shooting and attempted bombing occured at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino, CA, killing 14 people and seriously injuring 22 more. The perpetrators were a married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who investigations revealed were heavily influenced by extreme terrorists and terrorist organizations. Following the attack, Farook and Malik fled the scene as emergency responders and police arrived. Four hours after the attack, police identified Farook and Malik as the shooters, and approached their residence, where they were witnessed driving away. Police pursued the couple onto the freeway, before entering a neighborhood where the couple began exchanging gunfire with the officers. The ensuing shootout lasted around five minutes, leaving both Farook and Malik dead, and two officers injured.

The FBI's Request

Following the events of the attack and car chase, a search warrant was issued for the perpetrators’ home, which the police promptly executed. Farook and Malik’s residence was investigated, where several weapons and tools for bomb construction were found. Personal electronics belonging to the couple were also discovered, including the work-issued iPhone 5C belonging to Farook. Due to some witness’ claims of having seen a third gunman present during the attack at the Inland Regional Center, the FBI’s continued investigation centered around uncovering more information for the motives and plans of Farook and Malik, leading to their attempt to unlock and decrypt the iPhone obtained from the couple’s home.

On February 9, 2016, the FBI announced that attempts to unlock the recovered iPhone 5C were unsuccessful due to the security features of the device. The phone was protected by a four-digit PIN code, which only allowed for ten incorrect tries to unlock the device before the AES encryption key, which protected the phone’s stored data, would be erased, leaving the phone’s data inaccessible. The FBI first contacted the National Security Agency (NSA) to unlock the device, but they too were unsuccessful in breaking into the locked phone. The FBI then turned to Apple, the manufacturer of the device, to design a brand new version of the phone’s operating system that could be installed and allow for specific security components of the iPhone to be disabled and allow the FBI to access the phone’s data.

Apple declined the request due to its policy to never undermine the security and privacy of its own products. The FBI, without further means of unlocking the iPhone, continued to pressure Apple, applying to California district-court magistrate judge Sheri Pym to issue a court order to compel Apple to provide the software on February 16, 2016. The court order was called In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California Licence Plate 35KGD203, as the vehicle driven by the attackers was a black Lexus SUV. The order was issued under the All Writs Act of 1789, which states that federal courts can issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” This raised questions about how the government was interpreting the All Writs Act, as Apple had not been accused of any wrongdoing and was thus not breaking any laws. The order gave Apple five days to apply for relief if they felt the order was “unreasonably burdensome”.

Apple's Response

Apple declared its intention to oppose the order, with chief executive officer Tim Cook releasing a statement to all Apple customers detailing their stance. Cook states that the demands of the government were “chilling”, and that complying with the court order would set a legal precedent that they would need to unlock any device for any future warrant they faced, giving the government “the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data”(citation). The creation of this backdoor for their product introduced a huge security risk for Apple’s customers, as the backdoor could then be used over and over again on any device, thus undermining all of Apple’s security advancements over the years. Ultimately, Apple believed that while the intentions of the FBI were good, it was wrong of the government to request the creation of a backdoor to their products. A hearing for the case was set for March 22, 2016.

One day before the hearing, on March 21, the government announced that they had hired a third party to unlock the iPhone, and that they had demonstrated a potential method that required more time to determine its success. The court granted the FBI a delay on the hearing, and one week later on March 28, the FBI revealed that the device had been successfully unlocked. The court order for Apple to create the backdoor was withdrawn.

Ethical Considerations

The circumstances of this case were unique and unprecedented, and as a result raised a lot of questions regarding the ethics of security and privacy. There also arose debates of the roles of technology companies when it comes to the issue of national security, as well as the power that the federal government has over these companies in an age where technology is so prominent in the daily lives of Americans. The FBI argued that Apple’s noncompliance would hinder an investigation regarding the safety of Americans, as well as interfere with the prevention of future terrorist attacks. Former FBI director James Comey believed that backdoor access to devices were essential to many investigations, and that without it, many criminals would not be convicted as a result (citation).

Apple’s argument centered around how their compliance would result in a dangerous precedent that exposed technology companies to not be able to protect their customer’s data if the government were to request it. Apple had strong support from other prominent tech companies, with several amicus curaie briefs being filed with the court for the case, including major names such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Snapchat, Cisco Systems, and many more (citation). There were skeptics about the FBI’s real intentions, especially with the FBI’s ability to break into the phone with the help of a third party. This raised questions of the validity of the FBI’s request, with skeptics viewing the order as a way for the government to possess a method for decrypting devices in the future (citation).

The debate about the balance between national security and individual privacy was brought into the spotlight, with strong arguments on both sides leaving the issue at a stalemate. The tension between the limits of government power and the rights of private corporations were also explored. While the case ultimately did not result in a definite legal precedent, it did leave a lasting impact on the ongoing controversy between security and privacy in our digital world.