Juliana Skerl

IMS 201
Apple vs FBI: What Does This Mean for Our Future?
If you have not yet heard of the Apple vs FBI conflict over encryption you must be living
under a rock. The pressing issue of creating a backdoor for the FBI to retrieve information from
San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farooks iPhone 5c has been making headlines for months.
The FBI has stressed the importance of retrieving the information from this device because they
believe they could have been acting under the orders of a broader organization; however, many
believe this isnt the FBIs only motive. This issue has created a lot of discussion and argument
from major tech companies, politicians, and the general public. Many major figures such as
Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates took sides on the argument and a rift has been created between
Apple and the FBI as a result. The controversy as a whole has raised many issues regarding
online security and although the battle is over, the war has just begun.
When the FBI obtained Farooks cellphone after the shooting occurred they tried to
unlock the device on their own; however, this attempt was not successful. Sure, it sounds easy to
just open one locked iPhone but the issue goes a lot further than just that. The FBI was not
simply trying to get Apple to unlock one device rather they wanted to create a backdoor that
could subsequently be used to unlock all devices. According to Powles and Chaparro (2016),
The FBI has not merely told Apple to break into an iPhone, to which the companys standard
answer since the debut of iOS 8 in September 2014 has been cant, sorry. Theyve essentially
forcibly commissioned a new operating system from Apple one that the company must
digitally sign so that the iPhone trusts it, and then use to take customers information (pg.1).
This means that instead of just breaking into one iPhone, Apple would have to create an entirely

new software that would have the ability to hack into all phones. Engineers would have to go
directly against their values of protecting customers and be ordered to weaken the exact security
they created.
Although the FBI says Apple should have a moral obligation to open this iPhone, it sets a
terrible precedent for the future. The ability to open this iPhone could be detrimental to our
privacy as a whole. The article, The Apple-FBI Fight Isnt About Privacy vs. Security. Dont Be
Misled, makes many valid points about the negative outcomes of creating a backdoor. Barrett
(2016) states, the government has framed the argument as a simple trade-off: You must
surrender a little privacy if you want more security. The scales dont balance quite so neatly,
though; theres nothing secure about giving the FBI their way. Still, its been an effective way for
the government to win over the public, on its way to trying to win over the courts (pg.1). I do
not believe that the FBI only wants to only open this one iPhone. Although the topic of the San
Bernardino shooting is very serious and should not be taken lightly, I think the FBI looked at it
as the perfect opportunity to press the issue of encryption for more uses than just one. There are
many cases the FBI has that deal with unlocking phones, which shows the government should
not be trusted with a master key into our private mobile lives.
Thielman (2016) believes that with the technology to access encrypted information,
Theres no reason they wouldnt be able to do it again and again, for every operating system, for
every software company in the country, if its established that the government has the authority
to compel a company to manufacture a product that undermines its own security. Even if youre
not an iPhone user, the company that makes your phone or computer would have trouble
defending itself if the FBI decided to sue it for a password bypasser (pg.1) These are the many
arguments that have risen from the Apple vs. FBI controversy and it is important to know these

issues and what they can mean for us. The battle between Apple and the FBI settled at the end of
last month when the FBI was able to access the information from Farooks iPhone 5c using a
third party company that was able to hack into the iPhone and bypass the encryption. The FBI
may have been able to get into the iPhone without the use of Apples help; however, this does not
mean they will stop pursuing the creation of a backdoor into encrypted devices. A Justice
Department spokeswoman expressed that the government will continue to seek help from
technology companies stating, It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law
enforcement can obtain crucial digital information to protect national security and public safety,
either with cooperation from relevant parties, or through the court system when cooperation fails.
We will continue to pursue all available options for this mission, including seeking the
cooperation of manufacturers and relying upon the creativity of both the public and private
sectors (Selyukh, 2016, p.1). The issues surrounding the FBI and encryption are far from
disappearing.
I think it is very important as a college aged student to understand the factors that are in
play with this controversy. At first, the FBI gained a lot of support from the general public and a
high percentage of people believed that Apple should open the iPhone to protect our country
from terrorists. However, many people did not understand what unlocking the iPhone would
mean for our privacy. As the issue pressed on, more and more people came to realization of what
this could mean for the future and began to oppose the FBI along with the tech giants. This case
has actually made iPhone owners realize their devices can encrypt information and a lot of
awareness has been raised. People need to be more aware of security and privacy with mobile
devices and information they put online. Apple vs FBI is a great example of how our privacy can
become jeopardized and how we need to be careful with the information we share through

technology. This case has also led other companies to strengthen encryption and security.
According to the academic journal Biometric Technology Today, 10 years ago there were few
alternative solutions available that were secure and convenient, fortunately this has changed for
the better. There are now more cryptographic apps that are cost-effective and secure (Valcke,
2016, pg.10). Major companies such as WhatsApp, the popular messaging application, are
switching to end-to-end encryption which means all communication using WhatsApp will be
encrypted and not even WhatsApp employees would be able to read any of the data. If
WhatsApp were to find themselves in a situation similar to Apple, they would have no way of
complying with a court order to access information. I think the tightening of security is a step in
the right direction.
Along with being aware with the ongoing debates over privacy and security, it is also
important to know how to better protect yourself online with everyday use. Try to not overexpose
yourself online because you never know where your information might end up. It is important to
note that whatever you put on the internet about yourself can be seen by anyone. Passwords are
also very important to take into consideration. Never use the exact password for more than one
account; if one account got hacked then multiple could if you use the same passwords. One
should always read privacy setting information and be aware of changes in privacy agreements.
The Apple debate has led me to think a lot about my online presence and security of my
information. Some might say privacy is dead but I do not agree with this statement. I think being
aware is a major component in maintaining privacy and staying up to date with compromising
situations such as Apple vs FBI. These issues will continue to be brought up so it is important to
be informed of them. I know that the controversy has raised my awareness and I hope it has
raised others as well. This war is far from over.

Reference Page
Barrett, B. (2016, February 24). The Apple-FBI fight isnt about privacy vs. security. dont be
misled. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apple-fbi-privacysecurity/
3: I believe Wired is credible due to the devotion of the company to research technology in
culture, politics, and the economy. The staff are highly experienced and the content is constantly
evolving and updating. However, the content is not written by an expert and it is not in a
scholarly journal. There is devotion to the topics at hand but not expertise. There is use of other
sources and opinions from experts added into the content. Brian Barrett has written countless
articles on internet security. I do not sense any bias from Wired articles.

Crovitz, L. G. (2016, March 28). FBI vs. Apple isnt over. Wall Street Journal - Online Edition.
p. 1.
3: Highly reputable journal with well known authors. Many details are correct but there may be
some that are not. I accessed this article through EBSCOhost so I believe the information was
very informational and relevant to my topic. The author, Gordon Crovitz, is a media and
information industry advisor and executive. He was also executive vice president of Dow Jones
and has been active in digital media since the early 1990s. I think he is a very credible author to
be talking on this subject, however it is not a peer reviewed source.

Powles, J., & Chaparro, E. (2016, March 29). In the wake of Apple v FBI, we need to address
some uncomfortable truths. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/29/apple-fbi-encryption-sanbernardino-uncomfortable-truths
3: The Guardian is a respected news source that covers breaking news and hot topics. They have
many facts that are correct but lack expertise on certain topics and issues. It is very popular
among news consumers and generally considered credible. Julia Powles works on technology
law and policy. Enrique Chaparro is an information specialist and human rights researcher.
Although both authors are credible, neither of them are based in the United States.

Selyukh, A. (2016, March 29). Apple Vs. The FBI: The unanswered questions and unsettled
issues. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/03/29/472141323/apple-vs-the-fbithe-unanswered-questions-and-unsettled-issues
3: National Public Radio is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit organization. I
think NPR is a credible source and has a lot of popularity throughout the nation. The writing was
not opinionated but not exactly biased. Alina Selyukh is a technology reporter and host of the All
Tech Considered blog. She previously worked at Reuters where she covered technology but I
would not consider her an expert. The article contained credible facts and other sources.

Thielman, S. (2016, February 20). Apple v the FBI: What's the beef, how did we get here and
what's at stake? Retrieved April 17, 2016, from
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/20/apple-fbi-iphone-explainer-sanbernardino

3: The Guardian is a respected news source that covers breaking news and hot topics. They have
many facts that are correct but lack expertise on certain topics and issues. It is very popular
among news consumers and generally considered credible. Sam Thielman covers the business of
technology for Guardian US so it is not specified if he is an expert or not. However, he is from
the US.

Valcke, J. (2016). Best practices in mobile security. Biometric Technology Today, 2016(3), 9-11.
doi:10.1016/S0969-4765(16)30051-0
4: Biometric Technology Today is an academic journal that is highly credible and peer reviewed.
It is the most established source of authoritative news, analysis, features, and surveys on the
international biometrics market. The journal is committed to unbiased comment and fully
researched worldwide news coverage. Jan Valcke is an expert in technology and devoted to
writing about data security and privacy.