On the surface, the FBI’s battle with Apple appears to be a simple disagreement, with the man and a symbol of the corporate world beating their chests. The ramifications of the debate surrounding a court order to unlock the San Bernadino shooter’s phone go much deeper, though; this is a massive debate about privacy and if the FBI wins then all of our cyber security is at stake.

There has long been a debate about how much access law enforcement should have to our communications. In the UK, sweeping changes have been made to the privacy laws regarding our internet access lately, and that has not gone unchallenged, but the high profile debate about the San Bernadino shooter is a line in the sand in the Crypto Wars and neither side is giving an inch.

A deeper issue

This has almost nothing to do with Syed Farook, the man authorities believe is responsible for a horrendous mass murder in California at a Christmas party. Instead, it is a much deeper issue. If the FBI wins this case it could be the thin edge of the wedge and effectively opens the door to state-sponsored hacking, a subject that has come up more and more recently.

Twitter now sends warnings to users when it feels that the state has infiltrated an account and Apple is keen to show its users that it will take reasonable steps to protect their data. Its business model, which means it is trusted with huge amounts of personal information, depends upon it. 

The FBI already has huge amounts of information recovered from Farook’s iCloud server, Facebook and other social media accounts and he had two other mobile devices with him, too – although he did his best to destroy the information. His iPhone 5C was locked, though, and the FBI apparently cannot beat the passcode with a brute force attack, which is a ringing endorsement for Apple’s work if nothing else, as too many attacks will simply wipe the phone and render it useless. 

Help the brute force

The FBI has not even asked Apple to break the phone on its behalf; it has simply requested the tech giant to sidestep the phone’s in-built security so that it can take as many runs as required at the brute force attack, without the hard drive wiping itself.

Apple, though, sees a bigger picture at work and has publicly pledged it will fight the legal judgement that insists it must assist the government agency. 

It creates an uncomfortable precedent where the government could simply force technology companies to compromise their users’ data when a request is presented by the relevant law enforcement agency. In this instance it could look like Apple has a moral obligation, especially considering America’s general sensitivity to the terrorist threat. 

Considering law enforcement has consistently applied pressure for this kind of assistance on a catch-all basis, though, the tech industry as a whole is determined to resist. The Law Enforcement Act of 1992 does not cover advanced encryption, which has evolved beyond recognition since the early '90s and the US law enforcement agencies in particular are keen to create a government master key, effectively similar to the TSA-compliant locks on suitcases, that they can use to crack any phone or laptop. 

Civil liberty at stake

This creates an intense dilemma for the civil liberties groups, as well as those sure that a government key means that anybody with the will can crack a phone, while a large portion of the population believes in the mantra: “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.”

It is perhaps telling that the FBI has used the 1789 All Writs Act to try and insist on hacking tools. This legislation is more than two centuries old, so it’s safe to say it was not designed with smartphones in mind. 

This goes beyond the fact that there are already laws in place that govern the assistance the federal agencies can demand. Now there will be a case heard behind closed doors where the lawyers for both sides will argue about the interpretation. If the FBI wins, it is likely to go full steam to get full access to everyone’s smartphone, which could be a civil liberties disaster. 

Lower Manhattan

In the summer, DA Cyrus Vance revealed his office had failed to crack 74 iPhones in Manhattan, which would be fair game if this sweeping new legislation gets the go-ahead. That is a six-month period in a relatively small area, so if law enforcement knows it has full access to a key, numbers could go through the roof and accessing a suspect’s smartphone could become standard practice.

Apple, and of course other smartphone manufacturers, could be forced into automatic compliance, which would create a massive conflict of interest as companies are forced to continually undermine their own security measures. Cook believes it would be almost impossible to prevent the cracking tools falling into the wrong hands, which means dealing in stolen iPhones would become a business once again.

The legal case goes beyond phones, too, as the encryption process of the Internet of Things could, potentially, turn the world around us into an Orwellian surveillance network, loaded with spyware. As voice-controlled items and smart TVs enter our homes, so will the government. 

So the case goes well beyond a legal battle between Apple and the FBI, it’s a case that could determine whether they are watching us all, all of the time.