Case 8: Unlocking the Secrets of the Apple iPhone in the Name of Anti-Terrorism*
1. What was Apple’s motive in not giving the FBI access to the San Bernardino suspect’s
iPhone? Is Apple genuinely interested in protecting consumers’ privacy or in protecting its
brand and products?
Apple CEO Tim Cook indicated in his public letter that Apple did not want to build a back door
to their product as it would undermine freedom and liberty. Additionally, in a previous case
2. What responsibilities should device manufacturers like Apple have to assist in government
investigations, especially when serious crimes such as terrorism are involved?
Generally, companies must comply with the request to turn over information related to a case or
a governmental agency can subpoena the information. There should be a similar standard in
cases such as Apple’s. The government should be able to subpoena Apple for the information
3. Should the use of encryption be more tightly regulated?
Yes, the use of encryption should be more tightly regulated. If criminals are going to be able to
4. Should device manufacturers be compelled to unlock or decrypt devices under extraordinary
circumstances such as the San Bernardino case?
It seems as though if there are extraordinary circumstances, the courts might be the likely venue
to explore in this matter. While I do not believe that in the ordinary course of business it would
5. Apple tried to balance user experience, user convenience, and security in its devices. Should
Apple continue to do this, or attempt to emphasize one specific area?
Yes, Apple should continue to strive to strike a balance between user experience, user
convenience, and security.