How will the court rule in iPhone encryption case?
[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]T[/dropcap]he Justice Department (DoJ) of the United States has filed in its latest response to Apple in the fight over iPhone encryption, calling the tech giant’s rhetoric in the San Bernardino, California case “false” and “corrosive” of institutions that safeguard rights.
The debate surrounds whether the tech giant should help authorities unlock an iPhone used by one of the shooter’s in last year’s San Bernardino attack that left 14 people dead.
“Here, Apple deliberately raised technological barriers that now stand between a lawful warrant and an iPhone containing evidence related to the terrorist mass murder of 14 Americans. Apple alone can remove those barriers so that the FBI can search the phone, and it can do so without undue burden,” the DoJ wrote in the filing.
[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]T[/dropcap]he implications are huge, for Apple and the consumers. While most consumers may be willing to accept that the Government be given access to a Phone under extenuating circumstances, they may not want to make it too easy. In a letter to its customers, Apple said:
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.
This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.
In the letter Apple accused the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of forcing them to build a back door access software to get around the iPhone encryption scheme.
Apple is due to face the FBI in court later this month. The tech giant, which has said it would have to create software to allow investigators to crack the phone, has argued doing so could create a dangerous precedent. In a filing late last month, Apple argued the order would weaken individuals’ right to privacy.
- P Chidambaram – From Lawmaker to Law-Breaker to Law-Quasher - July 29, 2021
- Pegasus scandal – Why people with no criminal background are put under surveillance? - July 22, 2021
- Rafale deal controversies: A fact check - July 4, 2021