The Wall Street Journal is out with a new report this Monday, in which columnist L. Gordon Crovitz puts forward his opinion that the current battle between the two organisations is unlikely to reach its conclusion – just yet.
“The FBI and Apple reached a cease-fire last week, but it can’t last, because it leaves unresolved the future of reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment,” Crovitz says. “It would be a public service if both sides started making their arguments forthrightly,” he adds.
And the opine particularly throws shade in the direction of Apple:
“Apple should also stop conflating the broader issue of encryption with helping unlock a single iPhone,” Crovitz notes, as he cites comments originally made by Vox’s Timothy Lee that would appear to take aim at Apple’s supposed strategy in the case.
“The fact that we don’t know how to make an encryption algorithm that can be compromised only by law enforcement doesn’t imply that we don’t know how to make a technology product that can be unlocked only by law enforcement,” Lee wrote.
While some of that may be true, Lee appears to be forgetting that this case is solely about software, and that – whether you put it in the most secure box in the world – can (and likely will at some point) be compromised.
Crovitz’ statements aren’t just aimed at Apple, though:
“The FBI should also acknowledge that it pursued litigation instead of a legislative solution because the supposedly unitary executive branch hasn’t been united. Until recently, President Obama ducked the issue,” he says.
Earlier this month, President Obama took to the stage at SXSW to weigh-in on the ongoing debate, noting that his personal opinion on the topic was that no-one involved should take an “absolutist view.”
Crovitz cites that while the Apple vs. FBI case seemingly came to a stand still – last week, with the federal organisation revealing that it may have found a way to unlock Farook’s phone, the courts are still left with the potentially era-defining decision as to whether the Fourth Amendment actually has the power, in Crovitz’ words, to put “[companies and] criminals, including terrorists” above the law.
Thus the first round of FBI vs. Apple has handed the key question to Congress: Either the Fourth Amendment permits reasonable, warranted searches in the digital era or Internet companies can design systems to defeat court orders, putting themselves—and criminals, including terrorists—above the law.
Read Crovitz’s full opine.
UPDATE
Proceedings officially came to an end in the current legal case between Apple and the FBI, on Monday, when investigators claimed they had successfully accessed the iPhone – without the need for involvement from Apple.
This article is also available in Apple News Format.