Apple Refuses Court Order to Unlock iPhone
Back in December, 14 people were killed in San Bernardino. Syed Rizwan Farook, the killer, used an iPhone 5c. He was eventually shot by the police along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik.
After securing a search warrant for the phone, Judge Sheri Pym of the Federal District Court for the District of Central California commanded Apple to unlock the iPhone 5c used by Syed Rizwam Farook. The F.B.I reported that its experts were unable to access data on the iPhone because only Apple could bypass its security features. The F.B.I also said they risk losing the data after 10 failed attempts to enter the passcode due to the phone’s security’s features. Therefore, Apple was ordered to build a special software capable of unlocking the phone.
However, in a statement released by Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, it is said that Apple refuses to comply. This decision sets up a battle between the protection of the privacy of Apple’s customers and the ability to prevent and solve crime with new encryption technologies. Technology companies agree that creating a master key to get around encryption would indeed have catastrophic consequences for privacy. They believe that after it is created to open a single phone, it was inevitable that the government will ask for it again.
Do you think Apple made the right decision? Which is more important to you: protecting privacy or preventing and solving crime?