Somewhere south of the border, a giant tech company is fighting the FBI. They do not want to find a way to access the phone of a couple of people involved in a shooting in California. If you use a smart phone, you probably agree with them, whether or not you realize it.
The core of the argument is this, Apple (in this case, though it could easily be Google or Microsoft) cannot gain access to the phone in spite of designing it. They maintain this is on purpose – they don’t want there to be a way to get into a phone without the permission of the people who own it. The FBI thinks there should be some kind of “back door” on the device, so in cases like this there is a way for law enforcement officers to get into the phone and access things like texts and personal information of the people involved.
It’s easy to think that you would not agree with Apple, because in this case it’s people trying to access the phone of some murderers. There are bound to be people arguing that if you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to worry about when it comes to forcing companies to unlock a phone. The idea is to have a back door that works only for the police and law enforcement to get into the phone of criminals.
The problem with back doors is that they can be opened, and they’re not always opened by the people with permission to open them. Apple’s point in this entire debate is that if a back door exists, it’s a security vulnerability that affects all users of their devices. While the FBI’s proposed workaround is designed to involve only their people, it still means a security vulnerability would be built into the system, and that is going to be a vulnerability that is going to be sought out by people who are not particularly interested in solving any crimes. Instead, they would be much more interested in committing crimes.
As for having nothing to hide, actually, you’ve got plenty to hide, and it’s nothing illegal or immoral. Credit card information, passwords for various different websites, that kind of thing. Stuff that you have that you would not want anyone else to use for purely practical reasons. This is especially important as the various phone companies attempt to turn a mobile device into an electronic wallet and get businesses on board with that model. If Apple wants people to use their phone to conduct financial transactions, and they definitely do, part of their campaign will be that it’s a more secure method of payment. That does not work if they have an intentional, built in security vulnerability, even if it’s there for a good cause.
The goal of creating a phone so secure that the company that makes it can’t unlock it exists for that reason. Even if Apple can unlock the phone, they can’t actually let anyone know it’s possible, because then people will start looking for how they did it and if they could replicate the trick. Apple has to declare that they can’t get in the phone because if they can, they have just announced to the world that their product is vulnerable. For business reasons, Apple can’t publicly cooperate with the FBI in this case, but it’s also to protect consumers who trust their device to keep their information at least somewhat secure.
That doesn’t help investigators, and they are trying everything in their power to change Apple’s mind, including legal ramifications if they continue to refuse to unlock the device. If that works, it would be a serious blow to the company itself, as well as to consumers who buy any phone. If they are forced to design in a way to access a device under threat of the courts, it just means there’s a way to get into everyone’s phone. Suddenly, information is a lot less secure and people are carrying around devices which could easily be exploited by people who are up to no good. Information is already a commodity that people are looking for ways to steal, it’s not good to advertise that there’s a way to do it, and it’s mandated by law.
Apple, through bad luck, has been forced to be the test for this case. They can’t back down, even if they want to assist in the investigation, because they have millions of customers worldwide who would be harmed by having a security vulnerability built in to their devices. While we can see the value of this investigation and in some ways want there to be a way into the phone to get the information the police force needs, we also have to realize this is a case with broader implications. This is not one phone, it’s everyone’s phone. Even if you don’t use an Apple device, it’s still going to set a legal precedent which will hit other phones. Our personal security is still important, and this is going to have implications for all of us and the shiny devices that sit in our pockets. If you own a smart phone, you want Apple to win this case.
