Home News The Encryption Conundrum: Apple vs FBI (Part Two)

The Encryption Conundrum: Apple vs FBI (Part Two)

by Sia
413 views

Image Source: UltraDroid

In our previous article, we’ve given you the basics of the ongoing encryption saga between Apple and the FBI. For this part of the article, we’ll be taking at look what has happened within the past two weeks because some of the recent developments have been rather interesting to say the least. 

Apple’s Allies File Amicus Briefs

Image Source: TechCrunch

When it became clear that the FBI will be going through the legal system to force Apple to build them a backdoor into iOS, Apple immediately prepared their lawyers for the oncoming legal battle. It is obvious that even though the battle for encryption is currently limited to Apple and the FBI, various tech companies know that the result of this legal battle could have huge ramifications for all other tech companies in the US.

To that end, various Silicon Valley companies such as Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn and many others sided with Apple in this case. Tech companies aren’t the only ones that have sided with Apple in this case as various Non-Government Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and many more have also sided with Apple. On the 4th of March, many tech companies that sided with Apple filed their Amicus Briefs in support of Apple, all of which can be found here

The New York Court Rules In Favour of Apple

Image Source: Yahoo!

While the San Bernardino Court believes that Apple should heed the FBI’s demands, a New York court seems to think otherwise. In an almost identical case surrounding the use of the All Writs Act to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone, New York magistrate judge James Orenstein rejected the US Justice Department’s attempt to gain access to the iPhone of an accused meth dealer. Ornstein states that the All Writs Act cannot be used to force a company to modify its products and that should the court accepted the government’s stance, the result would be “so expansive – and in particular, in such tension with the doctrine of seperation of powers – as to cast doubt on the All Writs Act’s constitutionality if adopted”.

The New York court’s decision was not taken very well by the Department of Justice, and they have since appealed the decision, stating that this particular case is no different from the dozens of times that Apple had agreed to cooperate in cases before this one, and that it “in no way upends the balance between privacy and security”.

Apple And The FBI Testify In Front Of Congress

On the 2nd of March, both Apple and the FBI went to congress to plead their cases in front of the House Judiciary Committee. This resulted in a five hour long session that has congress questioning both the FBI Director James Comey and Apple’s general counsel Bruce Sewell over the potential ramifications of what the FBI is demanding Apple to do.

James Comey was on the receiving end of much flak from the congress, as some of the questions asked by the congressman that were present forced Comey to admit that if Apple really does do what the FBI wants them to do, it would set a precendent not just in the US, but it would apply to countries outside the US as well. 

Bruce Sewell would then go on to say that Apple’s drive to make iOS more secure is due to seeing security issues outside of the country. Sewell further states that following the FBI’s request isn’t a burden on time or money, it is instead the burden of compromising the security of their customers. When asked why that would be a burden, Sewell responded that he believes that this isn’t a one phone issue, nor can it be contained to a single phone.

I highly recommend that you watch the entire congressional hearing in its full, as many good points were raised by the congressmen.

The Department Of Justice Fires Back

Image Source: Wikipedia

Apple’s continued refusal to assist with unlocking the iPhone 5c has caused the Department of Justice to escalate tensions between the government and Apple even further. In a response that can be viewed here, the DoJ shot back at Apple, saying that “the Court’s Order is modest. It applies to a single iPhone, and it allows Apple to decide the least burdensome means of complying. As Apple well knows, the Order does not compel it to unlock other iPhones or to give the government a universal ‘master key’ or ‘back door’. Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights.”

The DoJ would also lash out at the other tech companies that sided with Apple on the case, saying that everything that the entire legal issue between Apple and the FBI is “a diversion.” The DoJ claims that “Apple desperately wants – desperately needs – this case not to be ‘about one isolated iPhone.'” 

Image Source: Bloomberg

Understandably, Apple wasn’t exactly thrilled with the report that the Department of Justice filed. In a conference call with reporters, Bruce Sewell says that the tone of the brief reads like an indictment. “In 30 years of practice I don’t think I’ve ever seen a legal brief more intended to smear the other side with false accusation and innuendo and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case,” says Sewell. Whatever the case, Sewell said that Apple has every intention of going to court to exercise its legal right. “Everyone should beware because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth,” added Sewell.

That is what has transpired so far in the Apple vs FBI case. There is no doubt in my mind that the case between Apple and the FBI (or perhaps the Executive Branch of the American government) will not be settled anytime soon. It is almost a certainty at this point, that the case would only be settled once it reaches the Supreme Court. This summarizes the entire Apple vs FBI saga thus far. We will be keeping a close eye on the development of this case as both sides fight each other in the courtroom.

Source: Bloomberg, The Guardian, TechCrunch

You may also like