Some Thoughts on the Apple–FBI Debate
When it comes to digital privacy, this case could prove seminal for issues down the road.
I write this column under the "opinion" banner, although I try not to throw my opinions around too much. As a journalist, I prefer to leave it to the experts I interview to express their opinions.
When it comes to the Apple–FBI case surrounding a phone of one of the San Bernardino terrorists, I have many opinions—some rational, some stupid, and probably some ignorant. And I am happy to express those opinions to my friends over a few beers at the White Horse Tavern on Bridge Street (not the famous White Horse Tavern ... the other one).
So I'll provide some thoughts that will hopefully offer some clarity or food for thought. I'm not asking you to agree with everything I say; the important takeaway is that no matter what your opinions on the Apple–FBI case, digital privacy will become one of the most important issues facing Americans in the future. Given the upcoming US presidential election, it would be good if we elect people who share our feelings about digital privacy.
Our full breakdown of the case can be found here, but in a nutshell, the FBI recovered one of the terrorist's work-issued Apple iPhones and they would like a way to get around the encryption without accidentally erasing all the information behind that security layer.
In order to do this, Apple would have to build a "backdoor" that can provide custom access to the phone's data. The FBI says this is only a one-time event, for this specific phone; they are not asking Apple to build a permanent key into all iPhones in order to get around its encryption. The agency says that it needs this help because as humans create more complex technologies, they will need assistance in monitoring for terrorist activities and making sure that there aren't terror cells planning an attack on US soil.
Apple says this would create a dangerous precedent. This type of tool doesn't exist and it would have to be built. It would have the potential to unlock any iPhone. Even if the FBI plans to only use it in this one case, there's no guarantee to that and this ruling could be applied to future cases ... again, precedent.
And it should be noted that The Wall Street Journal found that there are at least about a dozen other cases where the Justice Department is pursuing similar court orders to force Apple to help investigators extract data from iPhones. According to the story, none of those cases involve terrorism.
Slippery Slope
This is a complicated issue; there's no doubt about that. Bill Gates sides with the government while most other CEOs of tech giants are siding with Apple. The American public seems to be on the side of the government.
I reserve the right to change my opinion based on more information, but I am in Apple's corner, on this one.
I do want to know what other data is on that phone, but I don't want to do it at the possible expense of freedom. I know it's an incredibly tough job to police our borders, but there have to be limitations in what the government can do in order to protect the citizenry.
I hate the idea of a government agency coming in and telling a business that they HAVE to assist in building a tool that could potentially weaken the security defenses of a product.
I do recognize that we have to give up some privacy in order to better protect our homeland, but I'm also not prepared to just hand over the (cyber) keys to the government in order to accomplish that.
I know that we like to say that this tool will never fall into the hands of malicious hackers, but to say that there are never leaks is naïve.
This doesn't mean that I mistrust the government—for me, that's not the case—it just means that I have no idea what this could mean for future and that concerns me greatly. My biggest concern is that this tool could fall into the wrong hands.
And regardless of what you think of Edward Snowden, at least CONSIDER what he is saying here:
Journalists: Crucial details in the @FBI v. #Apple case are being obscured by officials. Skepticism here is fair: pic.twitter.com/lEVEvOxcNm
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) February 19, 2016
And I know this is a slippery slope argument, which I usually hate, but they're not always wrong.
I Could Be Wrong, Just Tell Me
Again, the government is asking Apple to build a backdoor around its encryption. Once it's created, there's no un-creating it. If you disagree with me, let me know. I like to listen to smart people discuss complex topics. That's why I'm in this racket. If you want to chat, shoot me an email: anthony.malakian@incisivemedia.com
I hope you haven't minded this more serious discussion. We'll be back to our regular banter next week.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: https://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Emerging Technologies
Buy-siders invest in private-markets platform, Broadridge expands crypto dealings, and more
The Waters Cooler: CME, ICE, and Nasdaq make other headlines; market data price increases slow; a new Cusip lawsuit and more.
Jump Trading CIO: Prop AMMs allow users to create ‘a mini Jump Trading’
Dave Olsen said at FIA Boca that a new concept, proprietary automated market-makers, had grabbed the firm’s attention this year.
SigTech’s closure amid agentic AI boom raises questions
Sources say competition from leading AI companies was too stiff to combat.
Apac buy-side firms embrace AI, automation to optimize business processes
Survey of Apac buy-side firms shows growing AI, API and automation usage to enhance investment workflows and enable data integration
FHLB Cincinnati explores AI to spot failing banks
The financial risk head at FHLB Cincinnati is developing an agentic model to draft reports for analyst review.
Waters Wavelength Ep. 347: Brennan Carley
This week, Brennan Carley, who has spent more than 40 years working in financial technology, joins to discuss the hidden risks and untapped potential of agentic AI in the capital markets.
MarketAxess and DirectBooks partner, MSCI debuts AI connectors, and more
The Waters Cooler: Canton’s consortium advances cross-border collateral mobility, TRG Screen launches a market data ROI calculator, and Trading Technologies provides direct connectivity to India in this week’s news roundup.
24X files for exemption from SIP rule to take part in overnight trading
The exchange, which began operating in mid-October last year, plans to offer the overnight session in the second half of 2026.