As many of you may have heard, in February the FBI requested that Apple make a modification to their systems to allow them to have access to an encrypted iPhone — which swiftly invoked the ire of the security community. Many experts asked why the FBI would even ask such a “ludicrous” and “short-sighted” question.
They questioned the FBI’s understanding of basic encryption principles and quipped that the decision must have been made by a politician since no security expert would have made such a request. They further pointed to the past revelations about Snowden’s leaks and how many government associations have recently (and continue to) abuse the powers they have been given in this area.
Many worried that such a request would set a precedent, and even the FBI director admitted that it most likely would.
Apple responded in kind and denied the request. This signaled the start of significant political posturing by both players to garner support for their cause. The security community and many industry leaders quickly sided with Apple.
Ultimately the FBI elected to contract a third party who used an unknown exploit to gain access to the device. Both parties ceased their posturing and stood down.
Three months later we observe the resulting fallout of this debacle.
Before this event even happened, trust in the U.S. government was near an all-time low, and this event did little to instill further confidence.
Beyond this, some have claimed that Apple “won” the battle as they did not provide the requested modifications — The FBI found another way around that did not require a court decision. This may be premature.
What Apple did do was prevent (for the time being) the FBI from having easy access to any iPhone they want in a systemic manner. This is important since the previous abuses of power stemmed from easy and systemic access to data (with or without warrants).
Prevention of such access requires the FBI to treat each case as its own separate issue:
- Get the physical device
- Get a warrant to gain access
- Breach that specific device
- Search for the evidence they need
The difference is in the difficulty and the case-by-case nature. It is not easy to do this process for 100,000 devices at one time. And it should not be. That is beyond the scope of a single case and some would say borders on surveillance-level.
As with most things, there is no black-and-white. There is always a trade-off between privacy and security, and it is not always clear which path should be taken.
What must be considered is that each breach of privacy for sake of security is a one-way transition. By breaching privacy through court-order, or through legislation, a precedent is set. This makes subsequent and wider-scope breaches easier. Alas there is an opportunity cost to our drive for total security. By resisting the FBI, Apple has resisted the erosion of privacy on a systemic level. Access to the device was still gained, but not through systemic means.
Furthermore, this event has heightened the awareness of privacy in the general populace. This can only be taken as a good sign. One should take their privacy seriously and be critical of any institution that intends to infringe on it. Not only did individuals take measures to secure their privacy, but other institutions did too. WhatsApp decided to strengthen their encryption as a direct result of the Apple case.
Unfortunately, the lack of precedent also means that this particular conflict may arise again in the future. And that future may include some event that spurs the government to forgo long-term thinking and rationality for a short-term solution to their immediate problems… Because, that hasn’t happened before.
All-in-all the result is favourable to both parties. Apple is enshrined as an advocate for privacy and maintains its position without alienating their consumers, while the FBI was able to ultimately gain access to the device in question. As for the future? No-one knows.