The impact to deactivate security of an iPhone

The Fight Over a Court Order to Un-encrypt the Apple iPhone, and the impact to deactivate security of an iPhone.

“Should Apple fight a court order to unencrypt iPhones? #unlockiPhone”

The issue over whether or not Apple should be mandated to unencrypt iPhones is truly a public moral dilemma. A dilemma, that affects everyone who owns a cell phone or digital device.  It is an emotionally complicated and aggressive debate that could change the structure of digital communication, as we know it.

The issue is exceedingly controversial as well as emotionally charged, due to the extreme nature surrounding the San Bernardino killings by terrorists. It has opened up a potential Pandora’s box when it comes to data security and who will eventually win in the debate over that security: the technology companies or the FBI.

The impact of the court order to deactivate the security of an iPhone could set a dangerous precedent when it comes to dealing with data security and privacy.  In the wake of the court hearings, Apple sent out a letter to its customers explaining its stance on the issue.

FOR DEACTIVATING ENCRYPTION

In court hearings, Manhattan’s district attorney, Cyrus Vance, stated in his opening statements that:

• “The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects against ‘unreasonable’ searches, is our best protection from abuse,” and not powerful encryption.

He has also noted that there are 175 iPhone’s waiting on the outcome of this encryption case.  Not all the iPhone’s, I am assuming, are from terrorists; they are from a variety of cases involving different levels of criminal activity.  One can only speculate on the degree of criminal activity that was involved in the use of these phones,  proven or non-proven.

Relying on a 227-year-old  1789 law, the All Writs Act, the government hopes to force Apple into deactivating the security of the  San Bernardino iPhone, used by killer Syed Farook, an iPhone 5C.   The decision to un-encrypt could change the way the average citizen uses their cell phone and other encrypted devices,  now and far-reaching into the future.

Vance urged Congress on Monday to pass a law requiring companies like Apple to preserve user keys for decrypting customer data. Vance will argue in the future that the lack of such legislation has.

•  “enabled Apple and other technology companies to upset the balance between privacy and public safety established by centuries of jurisprudence”.

AGAINST DEACTIVATING ENCRYPTION

It would seem that Apple isn’t too concerned by all outward appearances.  Especially considering they are preparing to launch the new iPad, 4-Inch iPhone on March 21, the day before the FBI Hearing.

This case is a hacker’s dream come true.  That is what hackers do, they attempt to break code, un-encrypt,  and capture sensitive data for their own usage or to sell to the highest bidder.  When you think about it, how much personal data is on your phone?  Do you have your saved bank accounts, social security, tax information, loved ones’ addresses and phone numbers, and sensitive company data?  I’ll bet many do.

Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel, willarguen that by unlocking the iPhone used by the terrorists in San Bernardino,   this will generate additional crimes. According to remarks prepared and released by the company, it is anticipated that Sewell will communicate to the House panel that:

• “Hackers and cyber criminals could use this to wreak havoc on our privacy and personal safety,”

Apple did score in the first round today when a ruling by a New York Judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein, stated that he did not have the legal authority to order Apple to deactivate the security of an iPhone that was seized during a drug investigation.  Orenstein concluded that:

•  “The government posits a reading of the latter phrase so expansive – and in particular, in such tension with the doctrine of separation of powers – as to cast doubt on the AWA’s constitutionality if adopted.”

Director of the FBI, James Comey, will testify tomorrow.  Comey warns that mobile encryption will endanger law enforcement.  AAttorneysSewell and Vance will also be presenting their arguments tomorrow.

WAITING ON THE OUTCOME

There is an aggressive debate happening nationally over the right to preserve privacy in a digital world versus ccrime-fighting Even Mark Zuckerberg has chimed in on behalf of Apple.  He noted  that:

•  “I don’t think that requiring backdoors to encryption is even going to be an effective way to increase security, or is really the right thing to do, for just the  irection the world is going in”.

We all want to abolish terrorists.  We all want to feel safe in our homes and in cyberspace.  But is allowing the federal government to have direct access to our personal data the safest way to proceed?  This could open us up to having our personal data more easily attacked by hackers or viewed by the government itself!   What private data could they use?  Other news quotes reflect this concern as well:

•  “The capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking”.
• “If enacted, create a digital vulnerability that jeopardizes another US government imperative: cybersecurity.”
•  “Hackers and cyber criminals could use this to wreak havoc on our privacy and personal safety,”

THE AVERAGE PERSON

As an average person on the street, I watch as the moral dilemma unfolds.  I understand both sides,s and I understand the emotional connection that is involved.   Lives were lost in  San Bernardino,  murdered with no thought of their families or communities.

The moral dilemma has been taken out of the average citizen’s hands and placed in front of a congressional panel and a multi-level corporation.  We are either at the mercy of the federal government or digital corporations – one is going to win.

One cell phone – or many?

My take on the issue is that terrorists do not have rights, but we do. We can’t walk in fear of the terrorists either.

The federal government is too indecisive in my opinion on way too many issues of late – and thus is less trustworthy.  I would like to lean on the side of Apple at this time, but I cannot fully do that, because the moral dilemma I feel is too far undecided to call anyone a winner.