Apple’s decision to challenge an FBI order to help the agency access a phone used by Syed Farook, one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, Calif. attack, has drawn both broad support and sharp criticism, according to CNN.
In the report, FBI claims that that encryption in iOS is preventing them from gathering evidence from locked iPhones, and Apple is refusing to code them a way around it. The government is requesting that Apple makes a code to remove encryption, giving the government unlimited access to iPhone users.
Team Apple
Rep. Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) chief executives of Google, Twitter and WhatsApp said to CNN, “No company should be forced to intentionally weaken their own products at the bidding of a government agent. Apple has cooperated with requests from law enforcement using the information that they have access to. Going any further would do real harm to Americans’ right to privacy and would almost certainly undermine the freedoms that our government should be working to protect.”
In a television Reddit interview, one of Apple's first coders and co-founder Steve Wozniak shared, “Twice in my life I wrote things that could have been viruses. I threw away every bit of source code. These are dangerous, dangerous things, and if some code gets written in an Apple product that lets people in, bad people are going to find their way to it, very likely. Once you create it, there's a good chance hackers will get into it," he said.
Prof Landau, an independent cryptology expert told CNN, “FBI should invest heavily in becoming smarter, rather than compelling Apple to make its products less secure. Because criminals would simply use other, more secure methods to talk to each other.”
Mark Caubalejo, a sophomore political science major from the Philippines shared, “Apple is right. We shouldn’t have the power to get private information. This reminds me of the case in 2014 of California versus Riley where the government wanted to get the police wanted a warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone. It was determined that they do not have the right to search the contents of a phone.”
Paul Barcera, a senior business major from Guam said, “Apple is in the interest of protecting our security and our privacy. Without encryption, you are basically saying the government can get into our personal lives. This time it might be only one phone, next time it could be 3 phones, the next time it could be to tap into our phone calls or to monitor our internet activity. It leads to a whole breach of security.”
Team government
According to CNN, Henry Nickel, a San Bernardino city councilman, said, “If Apple fails to comply with a warrant it is in violation of the law in the same way a landlord is in violation for failing to unlock a suspect's apartment door or a bank to release information related to an individual's financial data. Apple is simply wrong if it believes digital information is somehow more sacred than any other type of information.”
San Bernardino Mayor R. Carey said in a statement that he hopes Apple will cooperate with the authorities. “Officials do not know whether any information related to the investigation exists on the phone, but the judge’s decision is appropriate given the nature of the attack, and the potential to uncover clues related to this terrorist attack and/or future attacks. It is my hope that Apple cooperates given the circumstances of this investigation.”
Louisiana Congressman Cedric Richmond said to CNN, “We were reminded about a case involving Brittany Mills, an expectant mother who was shot and killed on her doorstep in Louisiana last year. Her baby boy died soon after.
"Ms. Mills - whose family attended the hearing - kept a personal diary on her phone that could contain crucial information about the murderer. The phone is locked, rendered unreachable by Apple's encryption software. “I think about the nine-year-old girl who asked ‘why can't they open the phone so we can see who killed my mother?’”
Keanu Lee Chip Sao, a sophomore computer science major from Tahiti said, “I think Apple is right with privacy, but I also agree that in this situation the government has a point in wanting to access that specific terrorist phone. Maybe access to that one phone would be wise in this situation, probably not on all phones. Research could be done to provide privacy alternatives.”