What began as a hand-to-hand conflict between the federal government and Apple through the encrypted iPhone of a murderer has turned into a confrontation with one of the strongest industries in the country on freedom of expression, consumer privacy and brands. global
And there are signs that this crack will deepen before it is patched.
In a unit show rarely seen in the technology industry, more than 30 companies-Google, Facebook, Microsoft, AT & T, Yahoo, Amazon, Twitter, Intel, Cisco Systems and others-filed amicus briefs in support of Apple in their opposition. to crack. an iPhone related to the San Bernardino murders. It is a formidable front in an industry often fractured by wars of intestinal products.
When, for example, is the last time that Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook were on the same team?
The newfound unity among almost all major technology companies is a powerful counterweight to the government, which made conciliatory overtures at the RSA cybersecurity conference in San Francisco this week. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter emphasized the importance of a free and open Internet in a speech. Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt was appointed to head a new Pentagon advisory board to drive Silicon Valley's innovation in the US military. UU
"I'm not a supporter of the back doors or a unique technical approach to a complex issue," Carter told an audience of mostly IT. That was a softer tone than the FBI, whose director began the warning week warning that technology was creating places where law enforcement could not go.
However, Apple, through strong public comments from CEO Tim Cook, a world-class legal team led by famed lawyer Ted Olson and his typical marketing wizardry, has persuaded / convinced / forced his technology brothers to take a stand equally hard on privacy.
The newly formed battle lines could usher in a new era of aggressive privacy policies by technology companies, which increasingly rely on their customers' personal data to earn business income. The broad scope of the case's consequences on privacy, cybersecurity, human rights violations and the ability of US companies to compete abroad backed Apple's argument, legal experts say.
"The FBI's interest in this narrow case overshadows a lot of other important American interests," says Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.
No less authority than the head of human rights of the United Nations, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, warned on Friday that the FBI risks "unlocking a Pandora's box" that could help authoritarian governments and endanger security of millions of people around the world.
Such warnings may deepen the public's growing concern about the government's efforts to unlock data on digital devices, particularly in criminal investigations, a skepticism fostered by Edward Snowden's disclosure of a powerful surveillance program by the National Security Agency .
"This conflict with the technology industry was inevitable," says Bill Snyder, visiting assistant professor at the Faculty of Law at Syracuse University. "If it were not for Apple, someone else would have taken the initiative" in a confrontation with law enforcement about privacy in a data driven society.
Perhaps the federal government miscalculated the industry's response when it made public its conflict with Apple. And maybe the proposals he made this week at a security conference in San Francisco were ignored by many in the technology community.
But the US government UU You should not discount yourself, in any way, in your search for a weakened iPhone to track down a terrorist act.
As Ahmed Ghappour, a law professor at the University of California-Hastings, told USA TODAY, the judicial system often sides with the government in public legal disputes with technology companies about user privacy.
"The government exposed a weakness in an Apple product (iPhone 5C), Apple does not address privacy or security," says David Cowan, partner at Bessemer Venture Partners, which oversees its investments in cybersecurity. "In the current world of daily cyberbullying, to build a secure system, you must welcome transparency and address vulnerabilities."
