Consequences of a hackable iOS System
In an open letter to Apple customers, published on Feb. 16, 2016, Apple CEO Tim Cook detailed that the company had absolutely no plans to comply with the FBI’s request to create software capable of unlocking iPhones in order to access the information of the San Bernardino shooters.
Cook explained that his company considers itself more than “compliant” to many of the FBI’s demands regarding this case. The company has answered FBI requests for information, search warrants, and offered engineers to advise the FBI when applicable. However, their stance on the San Bernardino case, and on encryption in general, has not changed.
The San Bernardino murders took place on Dec. 5, 2015, when Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik collaborated in the killings of 14 people. Farook’s iPhone 5c is at the core of the contention, as the FBI requested that Apple make the phone’s data and iCloud accessible. However, that technology doesn’t exist yet. Moreover, Apple has refused to create a backdoor, citing the need for encryption in their operating system.
Apple is not willing to create an updated version of the iPhone operating system with a built-in backdoor. In a nutshell, this iOS software—which doesn’t currently exist—would be the type of technology capable of cracking all Apple products and accessing consumers’ data without their knowledge or permission. This includes pictures, banking records, and personal health information.
Apple is adamant in their refusal, stating that, once created, the software could be replicated and implemented again.
In his letter, Cook called a potential backdoor a “master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes.”
Complying with the FBI’s request would be like creating an Achilles heel for the most successful company in the world, including all of their customers. Apple argues that the FBI’s request is an overreach of federal authority and warned against the consequences of creating a compromised operating system.
“The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe,” said Cook, in the customer letter.
In response to Apple’s refusal, the FBI opted for what can be called a fanciful interpretation of the 1789 All Writs Act. According to the new demand, Apple would have to create the technology that allowed users to electronically unlock their iPhones. Theoretically, a computer could unlock an iPhone by simply trying combination after combination much faster than any human could. Anyone could hack anyone.
To counter this flaw, the FBI’s plan would also have Apple build a surveillance system capable of spying on anyone and everyone, including accessing your phone’s camera or microphone without your permission. The consequences of such a surveillance system would more than infringe on users’ civil rights.
“While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products,” said Cook in the letter. “And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.”