Written By Jack J Collins, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Apple, unlocking iPhones and the FBI

Written By Jack J Collins, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

A recent court order that demanded that Apple help the FBI break into the iPhone used by one of the San Bernadino killers has been challenged by the company on the grounds that it violates the constitutional right of freedom of speech.

The company had been ordered by the courts to help the FBI circumvent their own security software on the iPhone of gunman Syed Rizwan Farook, but Apple claims that the software needed to achieve such an aim does not exist.

In fact, Apple states that it would have to create a whole new version of the operating system, which would open up a back door into the system’s data, which is encrypted in a secure fashion.

Whilst the FBI has specifically made it clear that this request is only for one iPhone and not a wider measure, Apple’s argument is that if they make this ‘hacking’ software for one iPhone then it could be used against anyone, and sets a precedent to break into phones in the future.

Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook has made the company’s position exceptionally clear in a statement, saying that: "The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand."

The question remains whether, legal or not, Apple have the capability to achieve what the FBI are asking them to do. Some devices are designed to wipe themselves if a software change is imposed upon them, but this tends to be in more high security industries such as banking.

However, it is a distinct possibility that Apple have designed the new iPhone operating software to replicate this, meaning that their encryption is fully secure, and cannot be breached in cases like these.

"The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers. Opposing this order is not something we take lightly,” added Cook. "We have no sympathy for terrorists. We are challenging the FBI's demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country."

The latest developments in the case revolve around the idea of freedom of speech. Whilst the FBI’s anti-terrorist precedent has appealed to the sensibilities of the American public, Apple’s claim that this is an erosion of the constitutional rights afforded to Americans is one that is perhaps closer to the hearts of the people.

A court case which is now at the heart of this matter is a 1999 ruling of Bernstein v. U.S. Department of Justice, which ruled that computer coding was a form of speech, and should be legally considered as such.

What this means is that by attempting to force Apple to write them a new code, which Apple are dubbing “GovtOS”, that Apple fundamentally disagrees with, the FBI are in direct violation of the first amendment, because they are disregarding their freedom of speech. This has been the argument which has tipped public opinion in favour of the technology giant.

On Thursday, James Comey, Director of the FBI, stated that their dispute with Apple as one of the most difficult ‘grey-area’ cases he had ever faced in his position. Whilst testifying before Congress, Comey stated that: "This is the hardest question I have seen in government and it's going to require negotiation and conversation."

Cook struck back by stating that whilst he saw the moral arguments for unlocking the phone in particular, the precedent that it would set is too dangerous to allow this to happen. He told ABC News Network that the FBI was asking Apple to create "the software equivalent of cancer", adding that, "some things are hard and some things are right. And some things are both. This is one of those things."

What is clear is that this case has become far more widespread than simply a debate over one iPhone. Whilst the FBI remain frustrated that Apple have not done something which appears to be relatively simple, the corporation has been praised by fans and fellow technology firms, including Google’s CEO, for standing up for the rights of technology in the face of government pressure.

Blog