THE battle between Silicon Valley-based tech industry giant Apple and federal law enforcement over access to encrypted cell phone data has continued, with privacy concerns against an investigation over national security as the hot topic.
The dispute has sparked a nationwide debate, and has garnered the attention of the families of the victims of the San Bernardino, California — 14 of whom were killed last December when two radicalized shooters entered the Inland Regional Center and fired dozens of rounds, before being gunned down later near their Redlands home by FBI.
The FBI has requested—by a court order, on the basis of the All Writs Act—that Apple should help agents by unlocking encrypted data on an iPhone 5c that belonged to one of the shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook.
Apple swiftly and publicly opposed the judge’s court order, arguing that it was fighting for “the privacy of millions of innocent people,” reported the Los Angeles Times.
Apple won a battle round when a New York judge presiding over a similar case ruled against federal prosecutors seeking Apple’s help unlocking a phone belonging to a drug dealer. US Magistrate Judge James Orenstein said that the All Writs Act does not grant the power the government seeks.
The families of the 14 victims are now speaking out, deeply hurt and affected by this dispute.
Mark Sandefur, the father of Larry Daniel Kaufman who was killed in the terror attack, wrote a letter released by an attorney that represents several relatives of the victims. “Recovery of information from the iPhone in question may not lead to anything new. But, what if there is evidence pointing to a third shooter? What if it leads to an unknown terrorist cell?” Sandefur wrote to Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook.
“What if others are attacked, and you and I did nothing to prevent it?”
Another family member of a San Bernardino victim also spoke out—Salihin Kondoker, whose wife was wounded. Kondoker said he supported the company’s position to protect consumers’ privacy, and also believed it was unlikely Farook’s phone contains valuable information.
“Neither I, nor my wife, want to raise our children in a world where privacy is the trade-off for security,” Kondoker said in a letter to a federal judge, posted on Apple’s website.
Dozens of groups have filed papers in federal court, seeking to have their arguments placed on record in the legal fight.
Leading tech companies—including Google, Facebook, Snapchat, Microsoft, and Twitter—have supported Apple’s position, arguing that ordering the company to write new software to help give the FBI access to encrypted data on the locked iPhone would “ultimately endanger the privacy rights of customers worldwide.”
“We believe the issues raised by the Apple case are too important to rely on a narrow statute from a different technological era to fill the government’s perceived gap in current law,” wrote Microsoft President Brad Smith, targeting the centuries-old All Writs Act. “Instead, we should look to Congress to strike the balance needed for 21st Century technology.”
Law enforcement unions, as well as the San Bernardino County district attorney’s office, supported the FBI’s argument, contending that Apple is wrong to turn a fight over a search warrant into a larger legal battle over privacy rights.
“Law enforcement is not now asking this Court to compel the ‘locksmith’ to give them a master key to unlock all locks built by this locksmith,” a filing on behalf of unions representing California’s sheriffs, police and officers read.
“This case is not about a single phone—it’s about the government’s authority to turn the tech companies against their users,” said the American Civil Liberties Union in a statement.
The ACLU argued that the government does not have the power to compel Apple to help unlock the encryption on Farook’s phone, which FBI agents believe has a security feature that destroys access to the encrypted data after 10 failed attempts to enter the right code.
