iPhone and AR15
The tragedy that happened in December of 2015 at the Regional Center in San Bernardino joined the ever-increasing list of public shootings in America. Most of these shootings get moderate coverage as the media will often find something else to focus their lenses on. But this particular story persisted. It grew legs in the form of a legal entanglement involving the Federal Government and a major global corporate entity. The FBI was charged with investigating this massacre and needed Apple to unlock the phone used by the assailants. The company refused, even with a court order. Before the FBI was set take the trillion-dollar company to court, they hired (or were approached by) “Grey Hat” hackers that unlocked the phone for them. This brought up several debates about the right to privacy in the case of a terrorist attack. As the arguments for both sides are stacked, it is hard to view this situation neutrally. It is my opinion that the government’s position is valid: it is necessary to circumvent people’s (and large corporation’s) right to privacy to protect lives.
Some would say we live in a dominating, tyrannical, oligarchy that runs this country in a constant police-state. I find it to be the contrary. We often overlook the safeties that we enjoy. The police and military are generally helpful as opposed to what some conspiracy theorists would have you believe. You can be thankful to them for many of the freedoms that you enjoy. Safe streets, strong defenses, and a dedicated service that is instilled in all cadets and recruits are a few examples. We have many rights that are protected, privacy being one. In the case of the famous iPhone debate, the FBI was not trying to infringe on anyone’s right to privacy, they were trying to investigate a mass shooting. Any help the smart-phone could offer was invaluable. This was not a case where “Big Brother” from Orwell’s 1984 is watching everything, everywhere. In an article for Washington Post by Ellen Nakashima, FBI Director James B. Comey said that the iPhone for which they created the hacking tool represented a “narrow slice” of smart phones. If they were to use this “tool” on the unsuspecting public, they would only be able use it on a small percentage. This is in contrast with Apple’s claim that a backdoor would be created that would leave all their products vulnerable.
As it turned out, three media corporations decided to sue the FBI for not releasing information about the Grey Hats that they hired. These are hackers that are known to sell flaws in software to government agencies instead of disclosing it to the software company (like “White Hats”) or using the flaws to rip off people using the software (like “Black Hats”). In an article by Dara Kerr, FBI Docs Tell How It Hacked San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone, Kind of, it states that the Associated Press, Vice, and Garnet (parent company for USA Today) are seeking “details about the hacker the FBI used and associated costs.” This is a fair question, asked under the auspices of how our taxes are being spent. But our government does have secrets it needs to hide. The details were released in a redacted statement under the Freedom of Information Act. We need to trust that anything redacted was integral to the investigation and should be allowed to be kept secret if needed. It may help to save lives or prosecute criminals linked to this heinous crime.
When this issue first came about, the FBI was willing to allow Apple to completely control the process. In a CNN article by Wesley Bruer (FBI Paid More Than $1 Million to Hack San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone, Comey Says) it is stated that the FBI was interested in finding a “sensible solution,” instead of paying hackers. It was only because of Apple’s refusal that they needed to do this. This shows that the government is more concerned with solving the crime than peaking in your cell phone. If they were in the business of invading our privacy they would not have allowed Apple the control over hacking the phone in the first place. It would be unnecessary to initiate this charade; they would have just hacked the phone and not brought it up.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein is on a committee that oversees the FBI’s operation. In an article on CNBC called Senator Reveals that the FBI Paid $900,000 to Hack into San Bernardino Killer’s iPhone, she is quoted as saying that she had learned “there were good reasons to get into that device.” The article goes on to say that the information was “properly classified,” with no need for the redacted details to be disclosed. These hackers were paid to avoid a large lawsuit with Apple. If the opposition’s assertions are true, that our government is trying to spy on all of us, they would not disclose such information to a senate committee.
We all have a right to privacy. I believe that right is respected in most instances. The government is not in the business of gathering information about its citizens and cataloguing it all for some malevolent use. If you ask me this is more of a description of companies like Apple. We often see advertisements based on previous search results on Safari. Our Facebook and Instagram (standard apps on all iPhones) run logarithms that track our social media activity. Nothing on our electronic devices are safe from Apple’s quest to sell you more products. The government is a protector; Apple is a business. It makes more sense to trust the people of the United States Federal Government than to trust a company that creates a buzz every year for the next model, or the newest invention with their logo on it. They are only concerned with making money. Instead of being concerned with how much money our government spent on Grey Hat Hackers to unlock a phone, maybe we should be more concerned with how much Apple could have saved us if they had initially complied with the FBI’s request at the onset of this controversy.