Should Apple cooperate with the FBI?
Source: Marie Morelli

The U.S. government and Apple Inc. are locked in a bare-knuckle fight over privacy and encryption.

Earlier this month, a judge ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock the iPhone of Syed Farook, the ISIS-inspired terrorist who committed mass murder Dec. 2 in San Bernardino, California. Apple CEO Tim Cook, in a message to customers and other communications, says Apple will not comply in order to protect users' privacy. Apple filed a motion opposing the judge's order on Thursday, claiming it violates the Constitution.

The controversy raises questions about law enforcement, counterterrorism and cybersecurity. We asked three people with expertise in these areas to address the question of whether Apple should comply with the judge's order. Responses were edited for clarity and length.

Fitzpatrick, Onondaga County District Attorney since 1992 and president of the National District Attorney's Association since July 2015, believes Apple should comply:

There's this odd alliance of the libertarian wing of Congress and the far, far left who feel that the government is intruding and listening into everything. Percentage-wise, the number of phone calls government listens to or retrieves data from is infinitesimal -- and it always has to be done with a court order. In Onondaga County, we've always sought a court order.

The notion that the FBI can't get into the San Bernardino terrorist's phone is maddening to me. It could be a treasure trove of future plots, co-conspirators. It doesn't get any more dangerous than jihadists who want to kill us. ...

It's not just terrorism ... Take the example of 16-year-old old girl who ends up missing. Police get there, you have panicked parents, her cellphone is on her dresser. Or police find her car and it's on front seat. Whether it's an Apple or Google product, the police can't get into that phone.

Would it be legal for a Realtor to sell a house saying the police can never search it? No, that's absurd. It's ridiculous. That's what Apple and Google have done. They do it because it's an attractive commodity. Public safety should not play second fiddle to corporate profits.

It's an absolute disgrace that if there's a terrorist attack that occurs in the future that could have been prevented or predicted as a result of this phone, what does Apple say, I'm sorry?



Kevin Du



Du is professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Syracuse University. Among his research interests is smartphone and mobile system security. He believes if Apple is forced to comply, it will set a bad precedent for other technology companies:

To me, it's two questions that we are asking. One is, technically, can Apple do this? I believe, and based on what I know about the iPhone, Apple has the technology to do this thing. The more controversial part is, should Apple do this?

My view is we shouldn't even get to this point. If we can turn the clock back two weeks ago, Apple and the FBI should get together and do this privately.

One consequence is that now other governments are going to ask Apple to do the same thing. Many people's lives may be affected because of that.

The other consequence – Apple is actually enhancing the (encryption) technology. If the government asks them to get data, they can get it. (So Apple says) I'm going to change my technology so I can't. They are forced to do that.

If the government wins this case, it's going to change how the technology is developed. That's a business decision they can make. Technology is eventually going to win.

This is one-time thing. ... The next time, the government is going to say, you did this before. You set the precedent. Unless the government can say we guarantee that we're not going to bother you anymore ... and neither is Russia or China ... but can the U.S. government guarantee that? There will be more things coming. Next time, they will ask for information from Google, Facebook, Samsung.

The consequence is much broader than what the FBI is thinking about. One time you can help me. Legally now the government can challenge all the vendors, other governments can challenge all the vendors.

From business perspective, you can't afford to do this.

On the notion of a place that cannot be opened by a search warrant: Say the U.S. government got hold of a safe. Would they ask the safe company to provide a back door? They would not even ask. They would just use lasers to cut it open. There's no comparison here. Encryption is too strong.

On the idea that encryption protects privacy and also protects criminals: It's always a double-edged sword. Look at a weapon. It's used by good people for defense. Bad guys use weapon to attack the USA. Should we just not produce the weapon? Anything that can protect you is always going to be used by the bad guy.


William C. Snyder

William C. SnyderSyracuse University
Snyder is a visiting assistant professor of law at the Syracuse University College of Law, teaching classes on computer crimes, cybersecurity and counter-terrorism. He was an assistant U.S. attorney for 13 years. Snyder assists at the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at SU.

They need to comply with the law.

I think what they're trying to do is raise the debate – what the law should be. That's not the law. The government does have a lawful search warrant. (Apple) will have to comply.

Apple is trying to argue that the burdens and risks for society would be too great. It's important to keep in mind that the government is not asking them to decrypt the cellphone. The government is asking them to use an existing feature in 5c to make it easier for the government itself to decrypt it ... They're not asking apple to create a "back door'' because this existing phone has an option to push through operating system updates. ... The government wants to us an existing vulnerability, not create a new vulnerability.

The bigger debate is perfectly legitimate. I just don't think this is a test case for it. Congress could pass a law that says people cannot build back doors into devices.

Apple is trying to raise societal question – in this particular circumstance they're overstating the risk and overstating the government interest in this. (The government has) a search warrant and a known terrorist.

Do we want places that the government, even with a search warrant, can't get to? That's a debate that's certainly worth having in society. ...

The rules of physics apply in cyberspace. What you have is data stored on a physical device. It used to be words on paper in a filing cabinet; now it's zeroes and ones and on a physical device in your possession. Should your phone be different from the address book that you used to keep?

There's never been a circumstance in the past with a valid search warrant –anything other than inside your head – and that's still protected.

What Apple needs, or the public needs, is a change in the law.

Syracuse University hosts forum on Apple-FBI controversy

Syracuse University's School of Information Studies will host a panel discussion to discuss the issues raised by this case at 3 p.m. Friday, Feb. 26, in Hinds Hall.

Panelists will include Du, Snyder and Yang Wang, Assistant Professor at the iSchool. The discussion was organized by Jason Dedrick, associate dean for research at the iSchool.

The discussion is open to the campus and community. It also can be viewed live online at
webconference.syr.edu/applevsfbi.