Apple-FBI issue more than just us vs. them

The smartphone data access issue between Apple and the FBI comes with many layers of nuance and complexity and certainly requires adult contemplation that continues to elude the knee-jerk positions often espoused by Arkansas’ junior U.S. Senator from Dardanelle.

A federal magistrate in California has ordered Apple to provide software that will allow federal investigators to release data contained in the iPhone (a 5c model) owned by Syed Rizwan Farook, who, along with his wife, were behind the December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif.

Apple CEO Tim Cook has refused to abide by the order. The result is a cacophony that, on the surface, pits those touting national security against those fearing federal overreach. Cook said the company has cooperated with the FBI, but has drawn the line at this request. Cook noted: “We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

“Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

“The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”

Gizmodo, a tech friendly blog, explained in this post that the feds are wanting something that goes beyond a standard search warrant. They likened the issue to a home search allowed through a search warrant.

“But if the FBI comes across a safe in that house, the warrant and permission do not mean it can force the company that manufactures the safe to create a special tool for opening its safes, especially a tool that would make other safes completely useless as secure storage. That’s the situation that Apple’s dealing with here.”

Apple has spent, by some estimates, billions of dollars developing secure systems. Those investments could be rendered worthless. The order would also provide far less democratic societies like the U.S. – think China – a precedent for demanding a similar backdoor. If we are now concerned about the hacking and data-theft coming out of China, then imagine the potential security problem with billions of smartphones with a weakened defense system.

The American Civil Liberties Union highlighted this aspect in this statement: “The government’s request also risks setting a dangerous precedent. If the FBI can force Apple to hack into its customers’ devices, then so too can every repressive regime in the rest of the world. Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers.”

It is indeed a complicated issue that has smart people on both sides seeking some balance between the federal order and Apple’s concerns.

But not U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.

“Apple chose to protect a dead ISIS terrorist’s p‎rivacy over the security of the American people,” Cotton noted in the first line of a statement he sent out early Wednesday.

See what he did there? You are either for the terrorist or for America. And notice that he does not consider your personal and financial data or the data of your company a necessary focus of American security.

Continuing, Cotton said: “Regrettably, the position Tim Cook and Apple have taken shows that they are unwilling to compromise and that legislation is likely the only way to resolve this issue. The problem of end-to-end encryption isn’t just a terrorism issue. It is also a drug-trafficking, kidnapping, and child pornography issue that impacts every state of the Union. It’s unfortunate that the great company Apple is becoming the company of choice for terrorists, drug dealers, and sexual predators of all sorts.”

See what he did there? Not only is Apple siding with a terrorist, but the company is for child pornography, drug trafficking and kidnapping. This is a debate tactic one might expect of elementary students.

And never mind that this has the potential to be the camel’s nose under the tent. Once Apple is forced to create a software back door, it’s just a matter of time before the likes of Cotton suggest that the NSA, FBI, CIA (add your favorite police state agency here) must have a mirror account of every smartphone sold in a better effort to stop terrorism, child pornography, drug deals, etc., before they happen. Because of course, it would be for the children.

We do not pretend to know who absolutely is right or wrong in this matter. We do know civil liberties have been weakened in past decades in our responses to drug wars, terrorism and other matters in which we’ve been told there is a clear national interest. Further, we are hopeful cooler heads will prevail and a compromise will be reached that allows Apple to provide a technological tool to aid the FBI but does not create a precedent now contained in the federal order.

What we don’t need is any effort to demonize those on either side of an issue in which careful deliberation is a path preferred to avoid unintended consequences.