• About
  • Editorial Board
    • Staff Writers
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
The Wellesley News -
  • News and Features
    • Professor Phillip Levine Discusses “A Problem of Fit”
      Professor Phillip Levine Discusses “A Problem of Fit”
    • CS Department shifts CS 111 course structure
      CS Department shifts CS 111 course structure
    • WAMI and WRJ host discussion on criminalization of abortion
      WAMI and WRJ host discussion on criminalization of abortion
    • News
      • News in Brief
      • Nation & World
      • President’s Corner
      • Senate Report
    • Features
      • Alumnae Spotlight
      • Eye on Science
      • Faculty Focus
      • LGBTQIA+ Column
  • Opinions
    • Why Art Basel is partially responsible for Miami’s gentrification
      Why Art Basel is partially responsible for Miami’s gentrification
    • It’s time to put traditional grading to the test
      It’s time to put traditional grading to the test
    • What can the fall of Z-library teach us about textbook accessibility?
      What can the fall of Z-library teach us about textbook accessibility?
    • Staff Editorial
    • Letters to the Editor
    • The Elephant in the Room
  • Arts
    • No image
      Pentimento’s Open Mic is Like an Old Patchwork Quilt–Worn, Yet Cozy
    • No image
      Kanye’s Antisemitism Steps on his Shoe Brand
    • Lousy Realities: Luca Guadagnino (2015)
      Lousy Realities: Luca Guadagnino (2015)
    • Arts In The News
    • Reviews
    • Music Peek
    • Books Before Boys
  • Sports and Wellness
    • Student-Athlete of October
      Student-Athlete of October
    • Athletics Update Oct. 19, 2022
      Athletics Update Oct. 19, 2022
    • The Case for Body Neutrality
      The Case for Body Neutrality
    • Athlete of the Week
    • Boston Sports Update
    • The Vegan Digest
    • The SHE Corner
  • The Wellesley Snooze
    • Top 10 Girlbosses who aren’t alumnae, but I would totally believe you if you told me they were
      Top 10 Girlbosses who aren’t alumnae, but I would totally believe you if you told me they were
    • Wendy Wellesley’s Thanksgiving Menu
      Wendy Wellesley’s Thanksgiving Menu
    • The Snooze Awards for the Best Tanners of 2022
      The Snooze Awards for the Best Tanners of 2022
  • Miscellanea
    • President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
      President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
    • Administrators shocked to learn that students dislike being left in dark
      Administrators shocked to learn that students dislike being left in dark
    • 50 Lies You Tell Yourself in Order to Survive Until Graduation
      50 Lies You Tell Yourself in Order to Survive Until Graduation
    • The Dose
    • The Olive Branch
    • Multimedia
      • Galleries
      • Infographics
      • Videos
By Rachel Tao OpinionsMarch 11, 2016

Apple’s customer privacy policies endanger national security

Photo courtesy of USA Today

Two and a half months after the Dec. 2 San Bernardino terrorist attacks that left 14 victims dead and 22 others injured, the FBI issued a court order requesting cooperation from Apple. The order asks Apple to develop a software that would enable federal investigators to gain access to one of the shooters’ locked iPhones and possibly alert us to future terrorist attacks. Apple has so far refused to collaborate with the FBI, standing by its promise to protect customer privacy. However, in this legal battle that pits privacy against national security, Apple is taking advantage of the situation, using it as a marketing opportunity to appeal to the millions of Americans who value their privacy above all else. Apple should give the FBI access to the iPhone.

The aforementioned software is most likely less complex than whatever most citizens have in mind; Apple simply needs to create a tool to override the function that erases all data on the iPhone after ten failed passcode attempts. It is not unreasonable to expect that Apple can develop such a software, as technologically inclined people (and tech companies) know that even the most secure software is not foolproof in the eyes of its creator. Apple CEO Tim Cook asserted in his Feb. 16 customer letter that the reason Apple will not comply with the court order is not that such a creation would be impossible, but that they consider the software “too dangerous to create.”

Is this software more “dangerous” than potential terrorist attacks that may be prevented later on? The iPhone in question could contain valuable information about the potential relationship that the shooters had to the terrorist group ISIL, as different sources have found contradictory links between the two. The phone could also reveal further plans of attack, as evidence suggests that the shooters were planning a much larger act of terrorism. Although both shooters are dead, there may be plans for a third perpetrator. If that information is on the iPhone, unlocking it could save lives.

A number of those siding with Apple claim that helping to unlock this particular phone would set a dangerous precedent that could potentially allow the government access to anyone’s phone. One needs to keep in mind, though, that this is not just anyone’s iPhone; it is evidence from the pocket of someone who murdered more than a dozen people. Gaining access to a proven terrorist’s iPhone is not the same as being able to seize any individual’s iPhone without a warrant. The shooter offered more than enough probable cause when he committed mass murder, and without probable cause, the government cannot search an individual’s possessions, leaving innocent people out of the picture. Whether or not the FBI chooses to abuse this privilege is beyond the issue at stake here.

Apple has argued that if a safe-cracking tool is created, two major concerns will prevail. First, the tool might get in the wrong hands and be used by hackers to obtain both personal and top-secret information. Second, law enforcement agencies worldwide will request to use the tool to transgress their citizens’ privacy for the sake of national security.

Regarding the first fear, Apple should be able to limit the software to the confines of this specific iPhone. To prevent the software from travelling elsewhere, Apple can terminate it once the shooter’s iPhone has been unlocked. Making such a tool safe would, undeniably, be difficult, but it should not be impossible. As for similar cases in the future, if the FBI issues another court order or has a warrant to search a criminal’s iPhone, then a similar software could be reconstructed, used to obtain evidence, and destroyed again.

The second fear, that breaking into this iPhone in this one case would pave the way for government issued privacy breaches in other countries, is answered by the reasoning that this particular case would set a precedent for only infringing upon the privacy of criminals, not innocent people.

Because Apple’s compliance with the FBI could potentially protect Americans, the company should follow the court order and develop a tool that would allow the FBI to continue its investigation into the terrorist attack. Apple may be one of the largest and most powerful companies the world has seen, but it is not above the law.

Share on

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Google +
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
Previous articleDepartments should offer more approachable courses for non-majors
Next articleLess defense, full-on offense: GOP leaders go all-out to defeat Trump

You may also like

Why Art Basel is partially responsible for Miami’s gentrification

It’s time to put traditional grading to the test

Banner reading this website has been seized over images of a book shelf

What can the fall of Z-library teach us about textbook accessibility?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

Top Articles

Sorry. No data so far.

Recent Tweets

Tweets by @Wellesley_News

The independent student newspaper of Wellesley College since 1901.

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

  • About
  • Editorial Board
    • Staff Writers
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
COPYRIGHT © 2023 THE WELLESLEY NEWS
Back to top