Profit or patriotism? What's driving fight between US, Apple

February 18, 2016 by Tami Abdollah And Eric Tucker
Profit or patriotism? What's driving fight between US, Apple
In this Sept. 9, 2014, file photo, Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks during an announcement of new products in Cupertino, Calif. Faced with a federal judge's order to help investigators break into an iPhone allegedly used by one of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters, Apple may well argue that the request would place an unreasonable burden on the company. In fact, doing what the government asks is not likely to be a tough technical feat for Apple. But doing so might have dramatic consequences on the data security of the millions of iPhone users around the world. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File)

Battling in intense public broadsides, Apple Inc. and the government are making their cases before anyone steps into a courtroom over a judge's order forcing Apple to help the FBI hack into an iPhone in a sensational terrorism case.

Both sides are framing their statements in ways that foreshadow the high-profile legal arguments that pit digital privacy rights against national security interests—and could affect millions of cellphone users.

Apple has until next Tuesday to protest in court the decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym in California. But the public relations campaigns—pitting one of the world's leading technology companies against the muscle of the U.S. government—are already underway.

Is Apple adequately cooperating with federal agents investigating the deadly attack in San Bernardino, California? Is this simply a dispute to recover information from an iPhone 5C used by the gunman, or more broadly a fight affecting the privacy rights of innocent citizens who use Apple's flagship product? Is this about profits or patriotism?

It depends on who you ask, and key players include powerful institutions of government, politics and industry.

The Justice Department fired its first salvos in court papers asking the judge to order Apple to create sophisticated software that the FBI could load onto the phone to bypass a self-destruct feature that erases all data after 10 consecutive, unsuccessful attempts to guess the unlocking passcode. Pointedly, prosecutors said Apple could help the FBI "but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily," and they said Apple could perform the task easily. That point is crucial because the government can't compel a company's help in some cases if doing so would be unreasonably burdensome, even though the U.S. would almost certainly pay Apple for the work.

Profit or patriotism? What's driving fight between US, Apple
In this Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2015, file photo, Apple CEO Tim Cook discusses the new iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus during the Apple event at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium in San Francisco. Apple has spent years setting itself up as the champion of individual privacy and security, a decision that's landed it in the government's crosshairs over an iPhone allegedly used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. The high-profile case presents risks for Apple almost no matter what it does, and may spill over into the broader tech industry as well, potentially chilling cooperation with federal efforts to curb extremism. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File)

Apple CEO Tim Cook disputed the claims in his first public statement, distancing the company from the suggestion that it was protecting the privacy of a terrorist. "The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government's efforts to solve this horrible crime," Cook said. "We have no sympathy for terrorists."

Cook also said the FBI's latest demand went beyond previous requests for help: "The U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create," Cook said. "They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone."

Cook introduced that radioactive word—"backdoor"—into the current debate, and the White House quickly rejected it.

The pejorative term, describing a behind-the-scenes method hackers use to gain unauthorized access, has for years colored the discussion of how the government can obtain protected information or eavesdrop on encrypted communications from criminals or terrorists.

The government is stressing that it wants help to unlock only the work-issued iPhone used by Syed Farook, who along with his wife killed 14 people in December. The FBI is "simply asking for something that would have an impact on this one device," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

But Apple says helping the U.S. bypass its encryption locks on Farook's iPhone would threaten the privacy of all its customers.

"While the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control," Cook said, adding: "Ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect."

On Wednesday, the Justice Department took the unusual step of responding to Cook's statement.

"It is unfortunate that Apple continues to refuse to assist the department in obtaining access to the phone of one of the terrorists involved in a major terror attack on U.S. soil," spokeswoman Emily Pierce said.

The back-and-forth marks an escalation of a dispute that, at least in public, has played out in mostly polite terms. FBI Director James Comey has been slow to criticize U.S. technology executives, describing them as "good people" who share the bureau's commitment to public safety.

In recent months, he foreshadowed a different approach by suggesting companies have the technical capability to help the FBI—but don't have a business interest.

"Lots of good people have designed their systems and their devices so that judges' orders cannot be complied with for reasons that I understand," Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee one week after the California shootings. "I'm not questioning their motivations. The question we have to ask is, should they change their business model?"

The rhetoric has drawn in presidential candidates, too. Marco Rubio acknowledged Wednesday night the issue is complex and said Silicon Valley needs to figure out a way for access to information in emergency circumstances such as preventing a terrorist attack. Ted Cruz said Apple should be compelled to help the government hack the iPhone because it's a binding order.

"Any time you're dealing with issues of security, and civil liberties, you got to balance them both. And I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time," Cruz said. But he indicated Apple was on the right side against weakening the security of every iPhone.

Explore further: Q&A: A look at the Apple vs US Justice Dept. court fight

Related Stories

Q&A: A look at the Apple vs US Justice Dept. court fight

February 17, 2016

A U.S. magistrate judge has ordered Apple to help the FBI break into a work-issued iPhone used by a gunman in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Apple chief executive Tim Cook immediately objected, setting the ...

Apple to fight order to help FBI unlock shooter's iPhone

February 17, 2016

Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook says his company will fight a federal magistrate's order to help the FBI hack into an encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino, California shooters. The company said that could potentially ...

US fight over gunman's locked iPhone could have big impact

February 17, 2016

A U.S. magistrate's order for Apple Inc. to help the FBI hack into an iPhone used by the gunman in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, sets up an extraordinary legal fight with implications for ordinary consumers ...

Recommended for you

Microsoft aims at Apple with high-end PCs, 3D software

October 26, 2016

Microsoft launched a new consumer offensive Wednesday, unveiling a high-end computer that challenges the Apple iMac along with an updated Windows operating system that showcases three-dimensional content and "mixed reality."

Making it easier to collaborate on code

October 26, 2016

Git is an open-source system with a polarizing reputation among programmers. It's a powerful tool to help developers track changes to code, but many view it as prohibitively difficult to use.

Dutch unveil giant vacuum to clean outside air

October 25, 2016

Dutch inventors Tuesday unveiled what they called the world's first giant outside air vacuum cleaner—a large purifying system intended to filter out toxic tiny particles from the atmosphere surrounding the machine.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2016
I'm with Apple on this. To open one phone in this case is reasonable. However to give the government a program to open any Apple product opens their security to anyone in the government that gets their hands on it. Too much business is done online to open the doors that wide. This isn't a "Don't you trust your government?" question. How well the government has control of their people is a valid argument. Once loose, the decryption that Apple developed on their own dime is at stake. Would you trust Donald Trump with your personal data?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.