You are on page 1of 2

Mohab O.

El-Ghawaby
Matthew Irwin
April 6, 2016

Apple & the FBI


Commentary

!
A major computer company, Apple has been addressed by the FBI regarding an
investigation. In an attempt to recover information from a case related device, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation requested Apple to retrieve this information from the device. In cooperation with
the FBI's efforts, the Cupertino company attempted to retrieve the accessible data from the
device. Although data was successfully retrieved from the device, more data was requested. Data
that however couldn't be retrieved was due to the absence of an iPhone backup. The data still
exists on the device, yet Apple's software security protocol only allows access through means of
user set security constraints, eg. a password. These security design decisions are made to ensure
privacy on every device.
The FBI asking a company with such a huge responsibility of securing the sensitive data of
millions to create a replicable method able to bypass its security protocols seems suspicious. Apple
did cooperate, yet as a result the recovered information was not enough. Despite Apple's
willingness to be cooperative within their ability, the bureau had to subject the company through
legal force. The security protocols put in place by Apple are to abide by its privacy policy and
security measures. People, in fact millions of people have agreed to the privacy policy offered by
the company. Security breaches in turn are a rare occurrence with Apple software.
Ironically, the FBI had access to the requested data in a situation which complied with
Apple's security protocol and user agreement. It is in this situation that a mistake was supposedly
made. The bureau itself obtained the computer containing the device backup. The backup was
later deleted by "mistake". Following the failure to retrieve the information, a request was made
to Apple for assistance. Apple is currently standing against reversing its security. Through the
lenses of politics, some are against Apples point of view, leaning toward the FBIs stance.
When I think of the FBI asking for a company with help to reverse engineer their product
to gain access to information the FBI originally had, I start to wonder. It does seem that theyre

COMMENTARY

!1

going a great length to make up for their mistake. When I say going a great length, I mean legally
forcing a company to go a great length. The concept of the countrys Federal Bureau of
Investigation simply trashing their own evidence on accident is difficult to grasp. True, everyone
makes mistakes, but the FBI with a case like this? Anyways, even if it was a simple mistake,
aggressively approaching a company that was more than willing to help you with what you
needed. Lending engineers and numerous employees as an effort to help, and this is the thanks in
return? I agree that the security systems designed by Apple were made in part to secure privacy
and prevent chaos. Chaos seems to be the reoccurring theme that people could be concerned of.
Understanding the precedent model for a similar situation that can be contrasted. In the
past the idea of disrupting net neutrality set a proposal to have a moderated, censored internet.
This allows for information being transmitted between parties to be intercepted and used
accordingly with government protocol. A debate started concerning the future of privacy,
including how we rely on it to function safely and securely on the internet. Despite concern of
what it might mean for privacy, including how internet service providers choose to moderate
content and speed, there is thought of benefit. The topic brought discussion of the potential
benefits of having the government and 3rd parties have greater control of your connection.
Could they possibly know what's best for us? Knowing if the government isn't using it's ability for
greater good isn't always apparent. To me, it is something that I feel. Just as with this case
involving Apple. Preserving a universal benefit such as privacy at virtually any cost seems to be at
one end of the spectrum.

COMMENTARY

!2

You might also like