Security vs. Privacy: It’s Not a Trade-Off
The consequences of our actions can often be far greater than they seem. This is especially true when it comes to legal matters. Court cases set precedent that determine how the very laws that govern our land are interpreted, thus even if a particular case seem irrelevant to the vast majority of people in our nation, it can drastically change the protections we are offered. The FBI v. Apple case, although now resolved, could have set precedent that would make us incredibly vulnerable to our government. There will likely be further, similar cases as our society becomes increasingly dependent on technology. The power of precedent and the importance of protection from all, even from the government that is created to protect us, must be remembered as we move forward in the age of technology.
Technology has become integrated into every aspect of our lives. My phone knows where I’ve been when, who I associate with, private health information, my banking information and more. It holds records of my conversations with those I trust, records of my search history and online activity. All of this information could make me incredibly vulnerable. I rely on the encryption created by Apple to protect this information from all. This encryption is designed so that there is no back door.
The FBI is framing this case as one of Security v. Privacy. They argue that for the government to do their job, to ensure the security of our homeland we must be willing to give up a bit of privacy. This argument is disturbing in and of itself. We must protect ourselves from our government too. There is a reason why our government is presently unable to demand any information from it’s citizens whenever. We must secure ourselves as well as our nation. However, that is not what this case is about. This case isn’t just about protecting us from the government.
We would be naked under the surveillance of our government...
If the FBI had successfully compelled Apple to bypass the auto-delete that occurs after 10 failed password attempts in an iphone a dangerous precedent would have been set. The government would have grounds going forth to force Apple into betraying the security of its customers. Apple would have to intentionally sabotage their encryption technology and to create a path that could be exploited by anybody into our technology. All of the information stored in our phones, in the other technological devices that have become ingrained in our lives will no longer be protected. We would be naked under the surveillance of our government, of hackers, of anyone who is as capable as the technicians hired by our government. It is impossible to create a short access mechanism that only the FBI could use. To give access to the FBI would give access to anyone, and to give this access in one case would give this access in all. Every one of us would become vulnerable.
There are hundreds of cases similar to the one the FBI wanted assistance from Apple on. This case was very specifically chosen to garner public sympathy and to align the public to the FBI’s side. Terrorism is an omnipresent threat to our nation, one that easily bands our citizens behind the government. The FBI wished to hide the true implications behind the case and to make the idea of our government having the ability to force access to encrypted technology, the idea of the government forcefully weakening the security we are offered to be more palatable. We must not let the true consequences of such cases to be obscured.
As a society that is increasingly reliant on technology, we are also increasingly reliant on the encryption woven into their software. To compromise the security that that software offers to allow one user, the FBI, to access our files is to compromise the security in a way that will allow any competent person to have access to your private information. Furthermore, if the court allows the government to force Apple to compromise our security in this one instance, a precedent will be set allowing the government to force a compromising of the personal security of individuals in any sense. We must remember the consequences of actions and preserve our own security, even if that would mean burdening the government.