{"id":4022,"date":"2016-03-29T12:21:21","date_gmt":"2016-03-29T16:21:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=4022"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:02","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:02","slug":"the-attacks-in-brussels-up-the-ante-in-the-dispute-between-apple-and-the-fbi-will-congress-finally-step-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/the-attacks-in-brussels-up-the-ante-in-the-dispute-between-apple-and-the-fbi-will-congress-finally-step-in\/","title":{"rendered":"The Attacks in Brussels Up the Ante in the Dispute between Apple and the FBI: Will Congress Finally Step In?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Apple-FBI<\/a><\/span> dispute involves our right to privacy and our concern for national security<\/a><\/span>. In a recent development in the case on Monday, March 21, the Justice Department\u2019s request<\/a><\/span> to postpone its hearing with Apple was granted. The government decided<\/a><\/span> it could break into the iPhone on its own, thus allowing Apple to maintain<\/a><\/span> its encryption and technological integrity. This was seen as a victory among some proponents of digital privacy. Cindy Cohn, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explained that this recent development in the case \u201cshows that we can stand up to the FBI and force it to think a lot harder<\/a><\/span>.\u201d However, the celebration may have been premature, as the very next day the attacks in Brussels reminded us that technology may have the ability to prevent future tragedies, and<\/p>\n

\u201ceach<\/a><\/span> attack increases the sense of urgency that we need to do something.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 
\nOn Tuesday, March 22, 2016, two explosions in Brussels killed 30 people and wounded more than 230<\/a><\/span> others. These recent terrorist attacks remind us how important national security is and raises the stakes in the San Bernadino<\/a><\/span> case. In a new Pew Research Poll<\/a><\/span>, the majority of the general public sides with the FBI and believes Apple should comply with the FBI\u2019s request to unlock the phone in question.
\nAlthough these attacks may evoke a visceral response in us, we should be careful to keep an eye on the bigger picture, and remember that our privacy rights are being targeted. What is at stake is not just national security, but the ability for the government to take advantage of encryption vulnerabilities in other cases as well. In addition to Syed Rizwan Farook\u2019s phone in the San Bernadino case, the Justice Department is demanding Apple to unlock at least\u00a0nine<\/a><\/span> other phones. For example, the Justice Department sought to have Apple unlock Jun Feng\u2019s<\/a><\/span> phone after he pled guilty to participating in distributing methamphetamine. Even the FBI Director James Comey, whose fight for access to Farook\u2019s phone is built on the \u201cspecial circumstances\u201d argument, said that if the FBI wins this dispute, \u201cit would \u2018potentially\u2019 set precedent for similar cases\u201d in the future<\/a><\/span>.
\nThe recent hearing postponement shines light on another side to this dispute: if the government finds a way to break into \u00a0Farook\u2019s<\/span><\/a> phone, Apple will fix that vulnerability in its encryption and issue an update to the software with stronger encryption<\/a><\/span>. As a result, the government will be forced to figure out a new way hack the encryption for the next time they wish to unlock someone\u2019s phone. This cycle of legal disputes and technological fixes will continue in a law and technology version of cat-and-mouse<\/a><\/span>. But Apple is not backing down on its stance and views itself as a \u201cvoice\u201d for any person (or company) too afraid to stand up for themselves<\/a><\/span>. Tim Cook, Apple CEO, recently wrote to customers explaining that Apple has even ensured that Apple cannot reach<\/a><\/span> customer\u2019s data, further illustrating how important the company values customers\u2019 privacy.
\nBoth Apple and the FBI have asked Congress to promulgate a law that pertains specifically to encryption technologies<\/a><\/span>.\u00a0 This sentiment is echoed by experts who claim the only way to put an end to this dispute is for Congress to get involved. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. answered this request by stating it was in both parties\u2019 best interest to resolve the dispute without Congress\u2019s help<\/a><\/span> because he doesn\u2019t believe the parties \u201care going to like what comes out of Congress<\/a><\/span>.\u201d \u00a0This statement may have led to the FBI\u2019s request to postpone the March 22\u00a0hearing. It seems, however, that Rep. Sensenbrenner\u2019s comments no longer hold true in light of the recent terrorist attacks in Brussels. People have become less occupied with notions of privacy, and are more concerned with safety<\/a><\/span>. And as terrorism continues to pervade our lives, Congress will continue to experience the pressure to get involved. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee was recently formed and \u201ccharged with identifying solutions for balancing encryption technology and law enforcement\u2019s needs by the end of the year<\/a><\/span>.\u201d Regardless of these committees, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) accurately explains that \u201cit\u2019s clear the fight over strong encryption is far from over<\/a><\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Apple-FBI dispute involves our right to privacy and our concern for national security. In a recent development in the case on Monday, March 21, the Justice Department\u2019s request to postpone its hearing with Apple was granted. The government decided it could break into the iPhone on its own, thus allowing Apple to maintain its …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4023,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4022"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4022"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4022\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7216,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4022\/revisions\/7216"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4023"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}