Apple unlocking the encryption code of an iPhone owned by a slain terrorist might actually damage beyond repair the national security it so fervently wants to protect. That is the explanation offered by Craig Federighi, Apple's Vice President for Software Engineering, in an opinion-editorial piece on the Washington Post on the opposing position taken by the digital company. It was also Apple's way to clarify the issue on social media where thousands of posts and Fans were asking the reason behind its obstinacy. Reactions were expectedly frenetic from supporters on both sides of the argument.
The Tech News World report says that the FBI had requested Apple to create a virtual backdoor to access the information on the iPhone owned by Syed Farook, one of the terrorists in the San Bernardino case. The FBI believes that the smartphone data could give them information related to the network of terrorists in Syria and Iraq. Apple, however, refused, saying that hackers could open that backdoor, and crash through the maze of confidential information that has remained impenetrable and unhackable so far.
Federighi wrote "Criminals and terrorists who want to infiltrate systems and disrupt sensitive networks may start their attacks through access to just one person's smartphone."
In its interview with Fast Company, Trail of Bits security expert Dan Guido agrees with Federigi's reservations, saying one hacker's manipulation of one unlocked phone can paralyze transport systems, play with the operations of electric grids, and attack other major infrastructure.
Yahoo's interview has Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak warning that yielding to the FBI can lead to disastrous precedents. He gives a hypothetical situation wherein a hostile country like China asks Apple to "....give us a backdoor so we can get into any phone, even your government's officials' iPhones, and inspect them at any time. That's wrong."
On the other side of the argument, Philip Lieberman, president of Lieberman Software, argues that privacy and security can still be protected if the access to the encryption is limited.
The arguments are best summarized by Peter Fu, who is both a lawyer and a cyber expert. He says that the need for the intelligence agency's access to data has to be balanced with the diverse interests of the greater community of users who want their data private. While a court may find a solution soon out of the impasse, currently, "...there is no 60-second answer in defense of data privacy."
© 2023 Lawyer Herald All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
Get the Most Popular Lawyerherald Stories in a Weekly Newsletter
Join the Discussion
Related Articles
