The encryption debate continues.

A court order compelling Apple Inc. to assist the FBI in obtaining access to the data contained in the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters was issued on February 16, 2016.  Since then, Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, has released a letter addressed to customers vowing to challenge the court order in the name of privacy.

In essence, the FBI is asking Apple to develop a program that would circumvent features of the operating system that would allow the FBI to break the password currently blocking access to the contents of the phone.  Without such a program, the FBI will be forced to use a brute-force method to guess the password, which may take days or years.  But this is an active counter-terrorism investigation, can the FBI afford to take years to investigate whether the perpetrators are a larger part of a cell, or to determine what precipitated the attacks in the first place?

It is important to understand that the government has presented Apple with a properly issued court order.  Tim Cook’s argument that the FBI’s use of the All Writs Act of 1789 instead of “asking for legislative action through Congress” is more of a policy argument instead of a legal argument.  Further, Cook argued that giving the government this ability will open the door for the FBI to use the capability to “reach into anyone’s device.”  This slippery slope argument is all too familiar.  Cook obviously feels strongly about this issue, perhaps he and others who take the same position should pursue change through the political process as he suggested law enforcement to do.

In the end, when a court order is properly issued, the recipient is obligated, legally, to comply.

The encryption debate continues.

A court order compelling Apple Inc. to assist the FBI in obtaining access to the data contained in the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters was issued on February 16, 2016.  Since then, Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, has released a letter addressed to customers vowing to challenge the court order in the name of privacy.

In essence, the FBI is asking Apple to develop a program that would circumvent features of the operating system that would allow the FBI to break the password currently blocking access to the contents of the phone.  Without such a program, the FBI will be forced to use a brute-force method to guess the password, which may take days or years.  But this is an active counter-terrorism investigation, can the FBI afford to take years to investigate whether the perpetrators are a larger part of a cell, or to determine what precipitated the attacks in the first place?

It is important to understand that the government has presented Apple with a properly issued court order.  Tim Cook’s argument that the FBI’s use of the All Writs Act of 1789 instead of “asking for legislative action through Congress” is more of a policy argument instead of a legal argument.  Further, Cook argued that giving the government this ability will open the door for the FBI to use the capability to “reach into anyone’s device.”  This slippery slope argument is all too familiar.  Cook obviously feels strongly about this issue, perhaps he and others who take the same position should pursue change through the political process as he suggested law enforcement to do.

In the end, when a court order is properly issued, the recipient is obligated, legally, to comply.