On February 16, a federal judge – at the request of the FBI – ordered Apple to unlock a phone belonging to the man who shot up an office party in San Bernardino, California in December 2015. Apple released an open letter challenging that order, claiming it would set a dangerous precedent.
Would it? What exactly is the FBI demanding that Apple do? What legal basis do they have for demanding it? How is this different from other requests they’ve made in the past? What’s really at stake here? What’s really going on?
The technological and legal implications, today on The Context.
Want to read more about encryption, or the FBI’s order, or Apple’s position? Here are some of my sources, and some things that I didn’t have time to elaborate on in the podcast.
- Read the actual court order sent to Apple on February 16
- Tim Cook’s official response
- FBI Director James Comey’s response to Tim Cook
- Tim Cook’s subsequent letter to Apple employees
- “Apple can comply with the FBI court order” (This is a full technical tear-down) – Dan Guido, Security Expert, Trail of Bits Blog, February 17, 2016
- “Why This iPhone? One thing getting lost in the Apple-FBI debate: It doesn’t seem likely that the device in question will yield any critical information.” – Slate, February 19, 2016
Implications in… China?
- “Why Apple’s fight with the FBI could have reverberations in China” – Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2016
Code as “Speech”
- “EFF at 25: Remembering the Case that Established Code as Speech” – Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 16, 2015
- “The Apple-FBI Fight Isn’t About Privacy vs. Security. Don’t Be Misled” – Wired, February 24, 2016