Updated 3.31.16

The FBI dropped their case against Apple, after their new-found method worked. The Justice Department will not disclose the details of who may have helped, or how it was done.

 

Original Story   3.25.16

The San Bernardino attacks took place last year, but this case--involving technology--is one that has not been closed. On Dec. 2, 2015, a gunman named Syed Rizman Farook was part of a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, in which 14 people were killed. The FBI confiscated an iPhone owned by Farook,and agents now believe the device could help them further investigate the incident.

 

After FBI agents reset the iCloud password in an attempt to gain access to certain data files, they were locked out by Apple’s iPhone security settings. The FBI then approached Apple, seeking the company’s help to unlock the iPhone.

 

Despite a federal judge’s court order, Apple refused this request and Apple CEO Tim Cook released a statement saying Apple  would not allow the government and the FBI to disregard their customer’s privacy. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon and other technology companies are supporting Apple in this case.

 

Currently, the United States District Court hearing for the case has been postponed. On Monday the Justice Department said they may no longer need Apple’s help, but could instead use a third party source. Yet, the Justice Department must test the new method, and said they would give a report of their progress by April 5.

 

I decided to ask several of my Milligan friends what they thought about this case. I contacted friends I believed would be informed, and would be interested in the case because of their major or career goals. Most of the friends I spoke to happened to be iPhone users. While all of them knew the security concerns regarding national security, they all still took Apple’s side.

 

Mitchell Clark, a senior business major, says he can see both sides of the argument, but added that he is leaning more toward Apple.

 

“I agree with Apple more, because if they allow the government to force them to give access to customers private information one time, then it will be expected of other companies to give up information as well,” he said.

 

Caroline Taylor, a senior communications major with a concentration in digital media, wants to look for the “middle ground,” adding that she’s concerned with national security and consumer privacy.

 

“I think the government is trying to ensure people’s safety in this case, which I agree with,” she said. “Do I think the government should have all access to all Apple phones? No.”

 

She would like to see a balance between security and privacy and would most likely stand behind Apple.

 

“If the government is asking for some sort of master key to all iPhones, then I think I would stand behind Apple more--in this case--to preserve this right for iPhone users.”

 

Colton Fenner, a junior communications major, fully agrees with Apple’s decision.

 

“I don't think Apple should have to give the FBI what they're asking for,” he said. “Allowing the government to pressure companies into doing something they're not legally required to do sets an unhealthy precedent, so I think Apple is right to refuse.”

 

Ruth Arambaru, a senior political science major, believes this is also a matter of respect.

 

“I side with Apple. I believe that the government should respect our privacy and respect Apple's decision to not give the FBI access to all iPhones,” she said. “While I understand that they want to hack into a specific phone, this will only lead to them having access to all phones. I think this is a matter or principle of respect from the government to us.”