Should Apple Comply With The FBI?

     Should Apple comply with the FBI? An opinion writer for the Washington Post, Bruce Schneier, says "you should side with Apple, not the FBI, in the San Bernardino iPhone case."  He claims that "either everyone gets security, or no one does."  Apple has been ordered to assist the FBI in gaining access to an encrypted iPhone that was owned by one of the now deceased San Bernardino shooters.  Apple plans to appeal this order.
 
     Mr. Schneier appeals to an audience that is against further government intrusion into the lives of American citizens.  This is apparent in his statement that "what the FBI wants would make us less secure" and that "powerful governments...want access to user data for both law enforcement and social control."  His positions as a security technologist and CTO of Resilient Systems, Inc., a cyber security company, give him seemingly impressive credibility where this issue is concerned.

     His argument is forthright.  He views Apple's compliance as a major security risk for the American public.  He acknowledges that, for now, the FBI is only interested in one particular iPhone and they are only requesting a rewrite of software to help them "hack" the phone.  This would enable them to acquire the data that would be lost after 10 incorrect guesses of the passkey.  However, Mr. Schneier points out that this software, because it is not encrypted, could work on any iPhone that happened to be of the same "model."  He goes even further to claim that this current demand will lead to decreased security on "smart phones and computers, as well as" decreased "security of cars, medical devices, homes, and everything else that will soon be computerized."  This appears to be a logical assumption, however, there is absolutely no evidence to support his assertions.  He provides no proof that this type of software would work on other phones, nor does he acknowledge that it may be possible to avoid that issue altogether.  He also alleges that "there's nothing preventing the FBI from writing the hacked software itself, aside from budget and manpower issues." Again, there is nothing to substantiate this claim.  Overall, in regards to this being a sound argument, Mr. Schneier is lacking the proper information to be empirically persuasive.  In fact, his entire argument sounds emotional and fearful of government intrusion.

     Regardless of Mr. Shneier's approach, I happen to agree that Apple should not be forced to cooperate in this instance.  However, it is not due to an irrational fear that the government, or anyone else, will soon be hacking my refrigerator.  This is most likely because I don't think we are all that secure in the first place.  If it can be hacked, it will be hacked. This is not to say that we should ignore possible security issues, but that this should not be the focus of the argument.  My view is that the government should not be able to force a business, that is not criminally responsible, to comply simply because a suspect used one of their products. Apple is simply not liable.  I also believe that searching this phone will not lead to some fantastic discovery that will save our nation from terrorists just in the nick of time.  Furthermore, I am no advocate of big business.  I do not believe Apple is simply looking out for the security of its customers.  I think, ultimately, they are protecting their greatest interest: the almighty dollar.  After all, the publicity they are receiving from "standing up" to the government is monumental.  Despite this, I believe they are in the right to contest this order.