United States: Apple vs. The FBI: Why The Stakes Have Never Been Higher

Last Updated: March 8 2016
Article by S. Gregory Boyd

This article originally appeared in Mashable.com

The one thing we know about privacy and data security is that we have neither. Those words are more true every day and if a federal judge gets her way, the state of privacy throughout the world is about to get a lot worse.

Apple is currently wrestling with the FBI and Department of Justice, resisting a demand to build a backdoor to its iPhone, which would expose all the information contained on the device. This is one of the most important legal questions to ever be raised in society's unending struggle to balance public safety and personal liberty.

SEE ALSO: The FBI says the tool it wants Apple to build could remain secret. Would it?

Whatever decision ultimately comes down in this case will send shockwaves into the future, and be essential in shaping policy and technological decisions regarding digital privacy. But in trying to understand the forces influencing this decision, it's informative to view the situation in a historical context. While the challenges that face every era are unique, we can learn from the reactions — and sometimes overreactions — to when similar issues arose in the past.

How this all started

First some essential background on the current case:

On Dec. 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and injured 22 others, including a police officer, in San Bernardino California at a holiday party for the County Public Health Department. Their attack was one of deadliest terrorist attacks since 9/11. The couple willfully destroyed all their hard drives and phones prior to the attack, except for Farook's work phone, which he left in a relative's car.

On Feb. 16, 2016, a federal Judge in California issued an order demanding that Apple assist the FBI in the accessing data on that phone, an iPhone 5C running iOS 9. Specifically, the FBI wants Apple to disable built-in protections that lock up or erase the phone when an incorrect passcode is input too many times. With that functionality disabled, the FBI can enter every possible passcode into the phone until it unlocks. This method is aptly named "brute force" hacking.

The FBI wants Apple to disable built-in protections that lock up or erase the phone when an incorrect passcode is input too many times

This isn't the first time the government has made such a request. Prior to the release of iOS 8 in September 2014, Apple could and did help law enforcement retrieve data from iPhones, although it successfully resisted governmental attempts that it work to actually "hack" into its own products — until now. This time the government is insisting.

The current case is different because the facts are as good as they are ever going to get. The crime is horrific, performed by a religiously motivated terrorist, the perpetrators were members of a minority group, and the phone itself was owned not by the criminal, but by his employer. The facts, law, and emotional appeal will probably never line up quite so well for a government case again.

Apple has already helped the FBI extensively with this investigation. Apple made its engineers available to law enforcement and provided information it has on its iCloud servers. Only the physical data on the phone itself, with approximately six weeks' of information not backed up on iCloud, is what is at issue here. This work phone, with a few weeks of missing data not backed up on iCloud, is not likely to be the most important digital device associated with the crime, but it does make an excellent battleground for the FBI to push for assistance involving hacking phones generally.

If Apple has helped so much with the investigation previously, why is it resisting this request? Among other reasons, the tool to disable the disk wipe does not exist. Apple would have to build it to help the FBI access the data on the phone. Building such a tool would also fly in the face of public statements Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made about data and user privacy since the release of iOS 8 in 2014.

This isn't about just one phone

From its court filings, the FBI believes the construction of this "backdoor" tool can be done privately, in Apple's own labs, with unique code that will only allow it to work on Farook's phone, and the software will never be used again. This is difficult to believe because we know Apple has received many such requests from law enforcement, including a case pending in New York to help the FBI access the phone of a man accused of drug possession — a far cry from murder and terrorism.

Apple sold more than 200 million iPhones in 2015 alone. The ability to unlock even a fraction of those would be worth millions of dollars to any number of buyers. Even if Apple can avoid the obvious problem of someone involved in the operation stealing the tool, the danger of so-called "legitimate" use is an arguably greater issue.

Apple sold more than 200 million iPhones in 2015 alone. The ability to unlock even a fraction of those would be worth millions

After Apple has complied with this type of order once, they will certainly be forced to do it again and again. Once this bell is rung, it is difficult to believe that world governments, much less the US government will be able to resist the temptation ring it again and again. Is this order valid, when constitutionally analyzed under privacy law associated with the Fourth and Ninth Amendments? If this court order is enough to force Apple to hack its own product, what stops this from happening in Russia, China, or Turkey? What of even less popular governments like Iran, Syria or North Korea? It will be difficult for Apple to pick and choose which countries have sufficient freedom and sovereignty for it to obey valid court orders with millions of customers and billions of dollars at stake in certain countries.

What makes meaningful disagreement with the court order so difficult is that the pro-surveillance side has such a powerful argument legally and factually. The FBI has a valid warrant, supported by probable cause. Farook is unquestionably guilty of despicable crimes and may have information on his phone that can lead investigators to other people that helped him commit those crimes. The data may even help prevent future crimes. If the court was asking to search a house, email, or car, this is more than sufficient. Normally, this should be unquestionably enforced. But enforcement here raises many important and far-reaching questions.

Inching toward the slippery slope

The core privacy issue is this: What should the law require? Is this judicial order enough to force Apple to provide access to an encrypted phone? Putting aside North Korea, Russia, or even early 20th-century Germany, we do not have to look outside of our borders to see that governmental and judicial validation is not always enough in the final moral analysis. Abuses of power are a frequent consequence of real or perceived threats to domestic and national security.

The historical evidence is clear: When faced with a threat that qualifies as "special circumstances," our government abuses power

Just last year, the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU-US Safe Harbor framework for personal data transfer because of privacy and surveillance abuses. We know the NSA was and likely still is monitoring email traffic, among other forms of communication, via its PRISM surveillance program, which Google and other Internet companies cooperated with. We know the U.S. has tortured and imprisoned people without trial in Guantanamo Bay. In the 1950's McCarthy, Hoover, and the FBI imprisoned hundreds and had more than ten thousand others fired from their jobs after uncovering potential Communist connections. This month, 74 years ago in 1942, Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 leading to the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in concentration camps, including American citizens and the wives of U.S. servicemen.

The historical evidence is clear: When faced with a threat that qualifies as "special circumstances," our government abuses power, and privacy and liberty are the first things to go. We have seen time and again that, after a certain point, the government may not be trusted with unchecked power. It fails to provide proper constitutional limitations, and those failures are only evident years later. We have seen the government strain to justify abuses or keep the abuses secret. When secret abuses are discovered, they will deny those abuses until the stream of facts make denial impossible.

Why the stakes are so high this time

Beyond governmental overrreach, we should also consider the smartphone is a special, if not unique object in our history. It is not the simplistic "persons, houses, papers, and effects" that was to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure contemplated by the Fourth Amendment.

A single device, weighing just a few ounces, carries thousands of photos attached to location information, voice and video call information, text messages, email, music, countless software application possibilities, geolocation data, and a constant, always-on network connection... to literally all human information. Such a "magical" device would have been inconceivable to the Founding Fathers. Given the balance of harm granting unfettered access to this, it may well be worth considering for protection even beyond the Fourth Amendment.

Beyond the complexity of properly pondering the smartphone technological miracle, there are two genuinely difficult elements to this problem. First, people are going to die. This is not an idle philosophical consideration, marketing event or political problem. If Apple successfully resists the hacking mandate, the phone becomes an even safer place than before to plot crimes, including terrorist attacks. Evildoers around the world will confidently use this powerful device to make carrying out their nefarious plans easier.

Reasonable people could side with either the government or Apple. However, we cannot ignore the problem, deny its importance, or pretend there is a middle ground

Second, if Apple assists in hacking the phone, it won't be the last time they are asked to do it. Some government, somewhere in the world, will abuse this power — and our own government isn't above the temptation.

Given the data a smartphone holds, this will lead to a level of global surveillance beyond anything known in human history. The seminal science-fiction writer Phillip K. Dick described what such a society would look like in his novel Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said: "You will be electronically monitored wherever you go. You will never be alone except for your own thoughtsin your own mind and perhaps not even there."

Reasonable people could side with either the government or Apple on this issue, and there are good reasons to take either position. However, we cannot ignore the problem, deny its importance, or pretend there is a middle ground. At the end of the day, the government will either force Apple — and by extension any and all other phone manufacturers — to help hack the smartphone, or they won't.

Personally, I hope the government is unsuccessful it in its bid to force Apple to aid in hacking the iPhone even with the negative consequences that follow from that decision. If we have learned anything from Snowden, Assange and Guantanamo, the innocent as well as the guilty will be subjected to the consequences of this decision – and some of them won't live through it.

PRISM, McCarthyism, and Japanese internment camps were the results of governmental unfettered access to much less sophisticated technology. The power and potential for abuse are genuinely, without hyperbole, incalculable. Having nothing to hide is a luxury that very few people, even good people, can afford, and having nowhere to hide is the definition of a police state.

A finding in favor of Apple would certainly be inconvenient for law enforcement. But as Jefferson once said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."

Originally published by the New York Legal Ethics Reporter

Please add at the end of every article:


This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

S. Gregory Boyd
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions