You are on page 1of 8

Madrigal 1

Ivan Madrigal
Professor Simone Flanigan
English 2010
7 August 2016
Privacy by Encryption vs. Eradicating Terrorism
Personal privacy has become a controversial issue after almost every terror attack. The
debate centers over whether or not to let the government see and hear more of what the average
American is doing on their phone in the hopes they will be better able to foil terror plots. Earlier
this year, Apple refused to create a backdoor into its encryption to help the FBI get evidence
from a terrorists cellphone. The FBIs argument is that law enforcement will be better able to
detect treats to national security. But than if make a key into the encryption on the average
phone, others also might be able to see what youre doing by taking advantage of the new
vulnerability. I have read a lot about the dispute between the FBI and Apple about their strong
encryption. Apple says they wont weaken their encryption by creating a backdoor for the FBI,
and there have been numerus law suits to try and settle this dispute. Putting every citizens
personal security in jeopardy is not the answer to stopping terrorism. Law enforcement has to,
can, and does use other methods to deter terrorist attacks.
In 2014, after Edward Snowden (former National Security Agency contractor) leaked
classified document revealing that the government was monitoring Americans' Internet and
cellphone use. Technology companies like Apple and Google released new technology to
prevent this. The software encrypts the data on smartphones and other mobile devices so that not
even the companies themselves will be able to access the information (All Things Considered).
The FBI and other law enforcement agencies were up in arms about the new technology now

Madrigal 2
available. Apple's iOS 8 operating system has encryption software so secure that no one (not
even Apple) has the key to it, and that became a big selling point. FBI Director James Comey
says he doesn't understand why companies would market something expressly to allow people
to place themselves beyond the law" (All Things Considered).
Nate Freed Wessler of the American Civil Liberties Union said there are still lots of ways
for police to get digital data. The sky is not falling for law enforcement; Police still have many
avenues for investigation." Wessler says. Information stored in the cloud is still accessible with a
warrant, as are phone records. "They'll still be able to do their jobs," he says. "What Apple did is
give their customers control over sensitive data stored on their own devices." What's so
interesting about the FBI's argument is this assumption that privacy is only there to protect
people who have done something wrong and that it's a tool for criminals (All Things
Considered).
In December 2015, a married couple launched a deadly attack in San Bernardino,
California, killing 14 and seriously wounding another 22. One of the shooters in that attack, Syed
Farook, left behind an encrypted iPhone 5S. Investigators locked themselves out of the iCloud
account, and the only way to get the data from that phone was to defeat the encryption
(Mitchell). As the investigation continued, the FBI demanded that Apple do more than provide
technical assistance. The agency wanted Apple to create a fake iOS update and send it to
Farooks iPhone, fooling the device into accepting a software package that would allow the
agents to bypass the password protecting the encryption. Apple called that a backdoor and
refused. That decision was based on the basic principles that make encryption both necessary and
effective. Encryption is necessary because users need to protect their data from surveillance by
overreaching government agencies, and theft by hackers. Encryption is effective because the

Madrigal 3
keys to unlock it are kept private. The problem with backdoors is that that is just not the way the
technology works. Any such key would inevitably be exploited by hackers and foreign
governments. Experts agree that there is simply no way for it to be kept safe (Mitchell).
In an open letter to customers, Tim Cook (CEO of Apple) explains the need for
encryption, the San Bernardino case, the threat to data security, and what a dangerous precedent
creating a backdoor would create. The United States government has demanded that Apple take
an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order,
which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand said Cook. For many years, we have
used encryption to protect our customers personal data because we believe its the only way to
keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe
the contents of your iPhone are none of our business (Cook).
The government may argue that its use would be limited to the San Bernardino case, but
there is no way to guarantee such control. They suggest this tool could only be used once on one
phone, but once created, the technique could be used over and over again. It would be the
equivalent of a master key to all of Apples physical devices. The government is asking Apple to
hack their own users, and weaken software protections making users less safe. They would have
the power to reach into anyones device to capture their data. We fear that this demand would
undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect (Cook).
Recently, FBI Director James Comey said government and the tech industry need to sort
out their differences over encryption before something terrible happens that would make
productive conversations impossible (Fowler). Comey said that it's up to the American people
to decide how to resolve the issue. He says before making that decision, people need to
understand the cost of absolute privacy. That encryption remains a tough issue, because it

Madrigal 4
involves a conflict between the key American values of privacy and security (Fowler). He added
that the FBI was able to buy a solution to the problem and avoid a longer court battle with Apple.
The FBI, other members of law enforcement have called for legislation mandating the use of
back doors into encrypted devices. Most of the tech industry says that creating a back door
would undermine security and privacy for everyone, putting everything from national security to
global market at risk of being hacked (Fowler).
In an interview with TIME earlier this year, Tim Cook discussed privacy, national
security, and what is at stake in the battle over encryption. After the FBI recovered the iPhone 5c
running iOS 9, and making the mistake of resetting the iCloud password, losing their chance to
get a new backup. The FBI made a further request to Apple to make a new version of iOS 9
without the 10-guess limit, enforced pauses between guesses, and another security measure.
There are only 10,000 possibilities to a four-digit pass code, so the FBI could brute-force that in
a day. Cook said We had long discussions about that internally, when they asked us. It wasnt
just me sitting in a room somewhere deciding that way, it was a labored decision. We thought
about all the things you would think we would think about. The decision, when it came, was no.
Cook thought that might be the end of it, but on Feb. 16 the FBI both escalated and went public.
Obtaining a court order from a federal judge that required Apple to create it and then chose not to
file the order under seal. If Apple wasnt going to help with a case of domestic terrorism, the
FBI wanted Apple to do it under the full glare of public opinion (Grossman).
Supporting Apple position, was technology firms like AT&T, Airbnb, eBay, Kickstarter,
LinkedIn, Reddit, Square, Twitter, Cisco, Snapchat, WhatsApp and every one of its biggest,
bitterest rivals: Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft (Grossman). The main reason Apple
refused is it would be what amounts to a tool for cracking open iPhones. It be the holy grail for

Madrigal 5
hackers everywhere and a gift to authoritarian governments willing and eager to pry into their
citizens secrets (Grossman).
As a public debate intensified over whether Apple should unlock the smartphones of a
suspected terrorist. Apple was quietly providing the FBI with other private information to catch a
different kind of criminal. Prosecutors allege that a Mr. Vaulin was the leader in an illegal
reproduction and distribution torrent site. Nearly a billion dollars worth of illegally copied
movies, video games, TV shows, and music albums. Apple has a strong interest in the collapse of
the file-sharing site, as it stood to earn a significant portion of the $1 billion worth of
entertainment spending the site gained. The iTunes Store has been the largest music store in the
world since 2010, and brought in $25 billion through 2014. Apple has no financial incentive to
share its encryption with the FBI (Rosen).
U.S. technology companies have to navigate the demands of governments in authoritarian
countries that dont care about civil liberties, but also happen to be very important to corporate
bottom lines. In 2013, Edward Snowdens claimed that U.S. tech companies, including Apple,
allowed governments backdoors into their operating systems. Apple CEO Tim Cook said no
government had any backdoor into its products or services and never would. China told Apple it
needed to do a security audit on its products. A year ago, it did so, and it's never been clear
whether there were any ramifications from the audit. Chinas security audit was done, by all
accounts, to ensure that Apple had not already built a backdoor into its products that the U.S.
government could use to its advantage in China. Apple has never publicly confirmed or denied
the security audit (Powell).
There may not be evidence that Apple has provided anything to the Chinese government
that its refusing to give to the Unites States. But some critics have pounced on the security audit

Madrigal 6
and concluded that Apple gave the Chinese government its source code. and in theory gave them
ideas about how it can build its own backdoor into Apples products. Showing the source code
in no way reveals the magic encryption keys generated by the source code and maintained in
secret on peoples individual devices said John Kheit. Apple is fighting a battle that Donttread-on-my-iPhone libertarians love and Get-the-terrorists-before-they-get-us hawks hate
(Powell).
R. Gary Marquart gives an interesting solution to the encryption problem. The FBI could
go observe at an Apple facility, and watch a modified iOS being downloaded and be able to run
multiple brute-force password attempts against it. When the phone is eventually unlocked, the
FBI would have the former user's correct password. Apple could then reload the original iOS,
and the FBI could take away the phone and the password and access the phone's contents without
further Apple involvement. No backdoor would have been released. No existing encryption
security would have been compromised (Marquart). I could see this working, but I dont know if
the FBI would ever hand over evidence, even if they could watch the whole time.
Requiring technology companies to disable their own security protocols to aid
government and law enforcement agencies sets a dangerous precedent that ultimately makes
these companies and all citizens vulnerable to breaches in data privacy. The potential benefit of
partnering with law enforcement does not outweigh the deep and permanent compromise of civil
liberties (Counterpoint). There are many reasons why someone would want to keep information
on their private devices private. The percentage of people the government would actually
apprehend is such minuscule portion. Any argument to make a backdoor makes me think that its
not really about catching bad guys. But then when the next tragedy happens, the FBI and fellow
fear mongers will use it to say this could have been prevented if only had a backdoor. Its not

Madrigal 7
about one terrorist iPhone 5, its about having a place where nobody, not even law enforcement
can gain access. As a nation, we have to decide whether or not we want that place to exist. Are
we willing to give up our freedom of privacy and personal security in the hopes it might deter
more terror attacks?

Madrigal 8
Works Cited
All Things Considered. Apple Says IOS Encryption Protects Privacy; FBI Raises Crime Fears.
National Public Radio. Literature Resource Center, 18 October 2014. Web. 30 July 2016.
Cook, Tim. " A Message to Our Customers." Apple. Apple Inc., 16 February 2016. Web. 30 July
2016.
Counterpoint: Compelling Technology Companies to Disable Encryption Sets a Dangerous
Precedent and Threatens Civil Liberties. Points of View. Points of View Reference
Center, July 2016. Web. 30 July 2016.
Fowler, Bree. "Comey: Conversations About Encryption Issue Still Needed." AP Financial New.
Points of View Reference Center, 27 July 2016. Web. 30 July 2016.
Grossman, Lev. "Inside Apple CEO Tim Cooks Fight with the FBI." Time. Vol. 187, Issue 11,
p. 42. TOPICsearch, 17 March 2016.Web. 30 July 2016.
Marquart, R. Gary . "No Backdoor Required or Expected." Communications of The ACM. Vol.
59, Issue 6, p. 8. Academic Search Premier, June 2016. Web. 30 July 2016.
Mitchell, Shaw. "Governments All-access Pass to Your Privacy." New American. Vol. 32, Issue
14, p. 10-16. Academic Search Premier, 18 July 2016. Web. 30 July 2016.
Powell, Bill. "What Apple did and didn't do When China Knocked on Its Backdoor." Newsweek.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context, 28 February 2016. Web. 30 July 2016.
Rosen, Ban. "How Apple and the FBI took down the world's largest torrent site." Christian
Science Monitor. Academic Search Premier, 21 July 2016. Web. 30 July 2016.

You might also like