ShareThis Page

The core of Apple's argument

| Friday, Feb. 26, 2016, 8:57 p.m.

Marc Rotenberg is president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the author of “Privacy in the Modern Age: The Search for Solutions” (2015) and “Privacy Law and Society” (2016). He spoke to the Trib regarding the legal rift between Apple and the FBI over unlocking an iPhone used by a shooter in the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack.

Q: What are the long-term implications of the Apple-FBI battle?

A: From the technology perspective, it places the company in the position of designing techniques to break the best features of the device. This has real implications for future design and for users' security. The implications are staggering. Would Apple then be responsible for making copies of the private digital keys on future iPhones so they could conduct a search if asked by law enforcement? Would every service provider then have a similar obligation?

Q: The FBI contends its demand that Apple compromise its iPhone security measures is a narrow counterterrorism tactic. Is that a reasonable position?

A: It's reasonable for the FBI to pursue information that is relevant to a criminal investigation. The question is whether it's reasonable for the FBI to compel a private company to break security features as part of the effort. Many technology experts and legal experts do not think so. From the technology perspective, Apple is being asked to develop a general-purpose technique to break and weaken the iPhone. The FBI has said it will only be used in this one circumstance, but ... once this technique is developed, then it could become available for use by others, including criminal hackers and repressive governments. To me, this seems unreasonable.

The United States today suffers from too little encryption, not too much. We have staggering levels of identity theft and financial fraud. ... Still, many companies routinely gather data without regard for the risk to customers or the need to encrypt. Apple should be commended for its strong stand. It is not only protecting privacy; it is also helping to reduce the risk of crime.

Q: Is the FBI attempting to publicly portray Apple as being weak on terror to force its cooperation?

A: FBI Director James Comey has emphasized the circumstances of the San Bernardino attack as part of his effort to force Apple to cooperate with the agency. This has likely helped influence public opinion. But it is only part of the story. Comey's views on encryption were well known before San Bernardino.

Q: Ultimately who wins this battle — privacy advocates or law enforcement?

A: It is possible that both sides could win. The Apple security features were adopted in response to law enforcement concerns about the growing risk of cellphone theft. According to Consumer Reports, more than 3.1 million cellphones were stolen in 2012. One of the very best ways to address the problem is to build in strong security features, which Apple has done.

In other words, the FBI may be frustrated about access to the phone in this one case. But overall, strong security features are good for consumer privacy and for law enforcement as they help reduce the level of crime.

Eric Heyl is a Tribune-Review columnist. Reach him at 412-320-7857 or eheyl@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.