Lastname 1 Firstname Lastname Mr. Coito AP Language and Composition 8 April 2016 Word Count: 1154 “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about the free speech because you have nothing to say.” – Edward Snowden Privacy and Apple’s Stand against the Government A few years ago, Edward Snowden brought privacy to the forefront of American political and moral debate, and since then it has remained an important issue in the minds of many Americans. More recently, the legal dispute between the FBI and Apple over unlocking an iPhone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attacks has again brought the debate between privacy and security into the national limelight. Many criticized Apple’s unwavering refusal to comply with the FBI’s request to unlock the iPhone, claiming that in such a terrible case Apple should do everything they can to help the investigation. However, claims such as these have little technical basis, and ignore the dire long-term consequences of compliance by Apple. Apple was right to refuse this request and is right to continue to refuse others like it because of the dangerous legal precedent compliance could set and because of the fact that any compromise of the iPhone’s security would have an effect on every current and future iPhone user. The dispute between the FBI and Apple began when a federal court issued a warrant ordering Apple to unlock an iPhone used by a shooter in the San Bernardino terrorist shooting.

Lastname 2 In the court case, the FBI requested a device that would bypass the limits on password entries for the iPhone, allowing the FBI to try every possible password (“Apple to Fight Order”). Immediately, Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook wrote a detailed letter to all Apple customers, posted on Apple’s website, warning of the far-reaching implications of the case. In the letter, Cook argues that though in the past, “when the FBI has requested data in that’s in our possession, [Apple] has provided it” but that in this case, “the U.S. government has asked us for something [Apple] simply does not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create” (Cook). According to Nick Wingfield and Mike Isaac of the New York Times, support from other companies in the tech sector was at first minimal, even among those in a coalition to reform government surveillance, with some commentators noting that “Apple’s stance in this case seemed overly antagonistic to some companies in the coalition” since Apple and other companies “often comply with law enforcement request for customer data when under order from a court” (Wingfield and Isaac, “Apple Letter on iPhone Security”). However, Wingfield and Isaac later reported that 40 tech companies filed court briefs in support of Apple, suggesting that expert opinion had encouraged pro-privacy stances among the sector (Wingfield and Isaac, “Apple Gets Tech Industry Backing”). This support only served to increase American debate on the topic, with some attacking the FBI and others trying to discredit Tim Cook’s letter. Cook’s argument against compliance may seem constructed solely to defend Apple, but it is in fact based on a long history of government backdoors causing the failure of private security. As John Oliver, a well-known newsman and comedian, notes in his video about encryption, the government attempted in the 1990s to install a “clipper chip,” a chip that would allow secure government access to consumer devices, on all phones. As Oliver notes: Now that clipper chip was theoretically perfect; your information could be

Lastname 3 encrypted, but the government would have an access point when it needed it. . . . There was just one problem with that chip. A computer scientist and hacker named Matt Blaze figured out a way to disable the government access feature of the chip and the whole project was eventually abandoned. (Last Week Tonight) Furthermore, a technical report published by more than ten cybersecurity experts in an online database run by MIT remarks in its abstract, “the complexity of today’s Internet environment, with millions of apps and globally connected services, means that new law enforcement requirements are likely to introduce unanticipated, hard to detect security flaws” (Abelson et al.). It is clear that any attempt to make a backdoor in the security features of the iPhone could and would compromise security in general. An FBI backdoor would not remain an FBI backdoor; foreign intelligence agencies, malicious hackers, and criminals could potentially discover the backdoor, especially since they know of its existence (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: An artist’s opinion on the result of allowing the FBI backdoor access to iPhones (Sack).

Lastname 4 For companies, cybersecurity is already a constant race to stay ahead of attackers. Malicious access to consumer phones would be unavoidable if Apple began compromising its own security. However, some pundits and writers have decried Apple’s actions. For example, John Miller of the NYPD argued in a clip shown on John Oliver’s show Last Week Tonight that Apple could create a “one-time” backdoor and subsequently “toss it in the fireplace and throw it away” (Last Week Tonight). Such explanations of the situation not only ignore the basic principles of cryptography and security, they also don’t consider the potential for abuse. Any tool that Apple creates to hack their own product can and will be used again. As the earlier, multiauthored technical report argues, “. . . the prospect of globally deployed exceptional access systems raises difficult problems about how such an environment would be governed and how to ensure that such systems would respect human rights and the rule of law” (Abelson et al.). If Apple yielded in this case, they would be forced to yield in any future similar case, and soon enough, federal, state, and local governments would be free to order iPhones unlocked in far less tragic cases, opening an avenue for extreme government abuse. Even more alarming is the international precedent such a concession would set. If the U.S. government can order Apple to unlock an iPhone, why can’t the governments of China or Russia or Saudi Arabia order the same? This would lead to government backdoors legally falling into the hands of far more corrupt and insidious governments than that of the United States. Therefore, a “one-time” backdoor is impossible; the only way to protect security is to avoid backdoors altogether. This battle between Apple and the FBI has brought an important issue—the balance between privacy and security—into the spotlight. As citizens of the U.S. and of the world, we should certainly prevent and prosecute terrorist attacks such as the one in San Bernardino, but we should also be careful that in fighting one evil we do not enable another. The general public

Lastname 5 apathy toward increasing government surveillance is alarming; it means that the average American does not realize the exigent effects of violations of privacy. Oppressive regimes are often formed with the general consent of their citizens, and it is only after it is too late that people realize what happens when they cede rights. Therefore, though this legal battle may seem insignificant, it is important that we make a stand against the violation of privacy to ensure we continue to enjoy the rights which we take for granted.

Lastname 6 Works Cited Abelson, Harold, Ross Anderson, Steven M. Bellovin, Josh Benaloh, Matt Blaze, Whitfield Diffie, John Gilmore, Matthew Green, Susan Landau, Peter G. Neumann, Ronald L. Rivest, Jeffery I. Schiller, Bruce Schneier, Michael Specter, and Daniel J. Weitzner. "Keys Under Doormats: Mandating Insecurity by Requiring Government Access to All Data and Communications." (n.d.): n. pag. DSPACE@MIT. Web. 8 Apr. 2016. "Apple to Fight Order to Help Hack San Bernardino Shooter's Phone." Fox News. Fox News Network, 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 8 Apr. 2016. Cook, Tim. "Customer Letter." Apple. Apple Inc., 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 08 Apr. 2016. Kleeman, Sophie. "In One Quote, Snowden Just Destroyed the Biggest Myth About Privacy." Mic. N.p., 29 May 2015. Web. 08 Apr. 2016. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Encryption. Perf. John Oliver. YouTube. YouTube, LLC, 13 Mar. 2016. Web. 8 Apr. 2016. . Sack, Steve. "Apple Lock." Cagle. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2016. Wingfield, Nick, and Mike Isaac. "Apple Gets Tech Industry Backing in IPhone Dispute, Despite Misgivings." The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 Mar. 2016. Web. 08 Apr. 2016. . Wingfield, Nick, and Mike Isaac. "Apple Letter on IPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response." The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Feb. 2016. Web. 08 Apr. 2016. .