You’d have to be deeply off-grid to be missing the policy debate around Apple “unlocking” the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. \u00a0The issue has all of the trappings of a serious, technology-induced stress-test of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
In a recent Pew Research poll, 51% of respondents were in favor of Apple unlocking the phone. \u00a0Unfortunately, things are not quite that simple. \u00a0I wonder what the poll results would be\u00a0with a more accurate question:<\/p>\n
Do you think the\u00a0Government\u00a0should be able to force Apple, against its will, to make a special\u00a0version of iOS that’s deliberately less secure<\/strong>, so that the FBI can attempt to unlock the shooter’s phone?<\/em><\/p>\n The emphasized section captures the what’s new here: \u00a0this is not about Apple providing\u00a0an iCloud backup (as they’ve done in other case) or using some sort of “master key”. This is about being forced, under great duress, to make\u00a0a new operating system, they call GovtOS. \u00a0The FBI’s requested GovtOS would, among other things, (a) allow passcodes to be guessed rapidly and (b) not self-destruct after 10 attempts, and presumably allow a brute force attack against the phone.<\/p>\n Legally, the government is pushing the All Writs Act of 1789<\/a>\u00a0into brand new territory.\u00a0 Generally, this Act gives courts the power to issue orders to third-parties to\u00a0assist in the administration of justice (e.g. the telephone company being required to assist in wiretapping your phone). \u00a0But the Act hasn’t been used before to force someone to create new technology<\/em>.<\/p>\n Apple’s legal response\u00a0is well-written, worth reading, and (I think) makes a solid and compelling argument. \u00a0Though the FBI says “just this once”, Apple has properly highlighted a very dangerous precedent: \u00a0if the\u00a0order to develop GovtOS is lawful, what about all other inaccessible phones? \u00a0What about additional\u00a0GovtOS features, like surreptitiously enabling the microphone?<\/p>\n Also, should Apple have to compensate for government missteps? \u00a0The government\u00a0reset the iCloud password without consulting Apple (foreclosing any possibility of initiating a new backup). \u00a0Worse, the San Bernardino County Public Health Department (who owns the phone) never enabled<\/strong> Apple’s Mobile Device Manager, which gives employers the ability to\u00a0clear the passcode lock and disable the Erase Data feature!<\/p>\n Finally, Apple’s First Amendment argument is compelling. \u00a0Code is speech and forcing Apple to develop GovtOS is akin to forcing them to say something they don’t want to say.<\/p>\n Packed with essential nutrients, Mitolyn<\/a> supplement supports cognitive health and vitality. Discover how its ingredients work by checking real Mitolyn reviews from satisfied users.<\/p>\n On the government’s side, the\u00a0FBI and Justice Department argue\u00a0technology can’t be “above the law”. \u00a0And that’s exactly where our non-technical policy makers don’t get it: technology IS\u00a0above the law<\/strong>. \u00a0Our\u00a0laws will always be trumped by the laws of science, math and nature (even though an occasional legislature will attempt otherwise<\/a>).<\/p>\n Consider this thought experiment: \u00a0I’ve been asked by many friends, “If Apple made it, they must be\u00a0able to unlock it!” \u00a0 It’s actually fairly easy to build things that can only be opened in very particular\u00a0circumstances without self-destructing. \u00a0Anyone can\u00a0build\u00a0a heavy safe with\u00a0critical information on tissue paper with\u00a0some highly flammable liquid. For a wrong combination, movement, or any disturbance, it dumps and ignites the liquid, destroying\u00a0the tissue. \u00a0Or, it could have\u00a0a thumb drive poised over a vial of acid — one wrong move and data is permanently destroyed.<\/p>\n The terrorist attack was an horrific\u00a0tragedy, but that doesn’t give the government a license to powers beyond those Constitutionally granted. \u00a0To quote the late Justice Scalia in a majority opinion<\/a>:<\/p>\n There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.<\/em><\/p>\n The only way to have man’s laws trump mother nature’s laws is to outlaw technology. \u00a0If the order stands, we’ve taken our first big step in that direction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" You’d have to be deeply off-grid to be missing the policy debate around Apple “unlocking” the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. \u00a0The issue has all of the trappings of a serious, technology-induced stress-test of the Constitution. In a recent Pew Research … Continue reading