The advantage has changed in the gamesmanship between the FBI and Apple over access to cell phones.
The FBI went to court to force Apple to figure out a way to hack into a cell phone owned by one of the two San Bernardino terrorists who died last December after opening fire on a meeting of the phone user’s co-workers. The attack killed 14 people; the husband-and-wife gunmen also died in a shootout with lawmen.
Apple, in spite of a court order compelling the company to unlock the phone’s password protections, said it would not comply, believing that privacy rights outweighed national security concerns, even when terrorism is involved.
The company is correct that privacy rights are important. Its resistance in this case stands in sharp contrast to the way communications companies secretly gave in to the government’s request a few years ago to monitor all phone calls made in the country — without a proper warrant to justify such surveillance.
However, the counter-argument to Apple’s position, which tilts the debate in favor of the FBI, is that while the Constitution prevents unreasonable searches of property, it also allows a search upon the consent of a judge. There is no legal defense for information in a cell phone or computer to have greater protections than information in a filing cabinet or bank vault.
The FBI made an end run around Apple when a private citizen or company figured out how to hack the terrorist’s cell phone — and shared the solution with the agency.
FBI Director James Comey, speaking at a university in Ohio last week, said the agency has not decided whether to tell Apple about the solution, since the company would then change its software to prevent the hack.
The FBI is under no obligation to provide the information. Perhaps Apple should seek a court order for it?
Jack Ryan, Enterprise-Journal
