Terrorists don’t succeed when they bring monumental buildings to the ground or massacre thousands of people before the eyes of millions of others. They succeed when they instill a new fear in the hearts of those they terrorized and force them to change their way of life because of it. According to this definition, it’s easy to say, despite our aggressive interventions against terrorist organizations in the Middle East and elsewhere, that terrorists have succeeded in whatever they hoped to accomplish in America (although I know that a few delusional people will still refuse to believe it).
When the government collects our private information and compels the corporations we have entrusted with our communications and personal files to produce them upon demand, we put our right to be secure in our persons into question. But how can you blame a nation for taking measures to protect its own people and for trying to prevent catastrophes from happening?
The government is not at fault for collecting our private information and demanding cooperation from companies, even if the constitutionality of it can be debated. However, the extent of what the government can ask for must be curtailed, and this power needs to be restricted when demanding such deeds begins to put regular people at risk.
Recently, Apple refused to comply with an order that required the massive technology corporation to assist in unlocking an iPhone that belonged to one of the dead San Bernardino shooters. For many who support Apple’s stance on this, their opinions are a matter of principle: They believe the government has reached way too far with its authority. The company itself fears that the next step could be demanding the ability to remotely track the location of a smartphone and access its camera and microphone without the user’s knowledge.
But while this concern is certainly not trivial, the more relevant issue for this case is not that the government continues to infringe upon our privacy by demanding corporations divulge their customer’s private information. Rather, it is what would happen if other private parties could find a way to access the same information.
Let us take Apple’s advice and consider the implications if the company were to give in to the government’s demands and create a version of iOS that allows an outsider to electronically run millions of combinations of passcodes to break into the devices where we store our most sensitive information.
It does not matter if this software will only be released to the federal government. The problem is that if such a software even exists, then criminals — the ones with true malicious intent who won’t just be collecting our personal information, as the government or Apple does, but actually using it against us for purposes such as credit card theft, fraud or defamation — will be motivated to obtain or emulate this software for themselves.
The Justice Department accused Apple of using this standoff as an opportunity to boost its reputation among users. But even if the company is doing so, if this motion to compel Apple goes through, the security of all iPhone users will be compromised. And I am certain that Apple’s resources can be better allocated than to such menacing purposes.
William An is a freshman finance major. He can be reached at willandbk@gmail.com.
