Dear Editor,
Encryption is a major issue in today’s society, particularly with the prevalence of technology in our everyday lives. Yet, much of the public seems uninformed about what encryption means in terms of their security. People use their phones, laptops, and tablets constantly, but complain when Apple won’t provide a software “master key” to help the government open up a phone. They don’t realize doing so would create an alley for hackers and others with malicious intent to see their texts, emails, pictures, and everything else on their devices. We’re not saying Apple is definitively right in refusing to make this software for the government, but we do think the public should be more informed about the encryption issue before jumping so quickly to conclusions spread about in the media for potentially millions to see.
Encryption has been vital to the maintenance of personal privacy since people began carrying most of their information in their pockets. For the last ten years or so, one simple network hack could leak millions of people’s credit card numbers, social security numbers, addresses, and more. Today, a single digital device may be the gateway to access the owner’s social, professional, and financial networks and correspondence. Smartphone features like GPS mapping can retrace the owner’s steps and create a timeline of their activities. Beyond the more sterile records, phones also hold photos and other private information that proffer a unique and quite comprehensive glimpse into the owner’s life and relationships. From scandalous leaks of nude images to emails, the public is very familiar with the dangers of these private accounts in the wrong hands. Access to all of this personal data is protected through careful security measures like encryption.
Encryption is a way of locking information so it can only be made readable by use of a particular key. A smartphone protected by encryption is much like a safe protected by an extremely sturdy lock. Only the owner of the safe possesses the key to unlock it and retrieve its contents. On iPhones, the data is encrypted with the user’s passcode as the key. As long as the phone is locked, so is all of its information. Each iPhone will accept a limited number of incorrect passcodes before disabling the phone for a period of time. By default, there is a cap on the number of tries allowed, however. If the incorrect attempts reach that limit, the phone may reset, and all of its data will be wiped.
What the FBI asked of Apple seems simple enough. They wanted a particular version of software written that would allow them to bypass the current incorrect-password limits. This would enable them to brute force the passcode on the phone by trying an exhaustive list of possible combinations until they manage to find the right one. The software would not automatically unlock the phone, just decrease its security so the FBI could breach it. As we’ve already noted, the amount and type of information contained on an iPhone is extensive. All of this data in composite could be extremely helpful to law enforcement investigating criminal activity. It would enable them to uncover plans and intentions, and recreate the suspect’s actions up to and during the time the crime was being committed. In this particular case, the FBI stood to learn a lot about the deceased suspect that could give them greater insight into the tragic San Bernardino shooting.
Apple asked the FBI — and the public — to look at this request from a security standpoint rather than a law enforcement one. Asking Apple to create software to weaken their encryption is, to return to our earlier simile, akin to asking the maker of a popular safe to create a master key that would unlock any safe of that brand. Creating that key would not, itself, be the problem. Apple is concerned about what it would mean that such a key would exist. Having the ability to break into any iPhone anywhere is no small power. It raises some important questions. Who would have control over this ability? Although the FBI asserted it would be a one-time use, once created, what is to stop its continued use? And perhaps most importantly, what would it mean for the security of iPhones everywhere if this vulnerability existed, since it would be sure to become a prime target for hackers?
So, it is in this light that we ask the public to consider the situation before jumping to conclusions and showcasing outrage over Apple’s decision. How would they feel if such a master key to phones existed? And how would they feel if this key got into the wrong hands and their own phone was one of the ones hacked? Are those risks worth the benefit to law enforcement? These facts and questions are important to consider before taking a stance on the issue, and we think much of the public needs to take a step back and think critically about their beliefs regarding the implications of Apple’s decision.
Sincerely,
Kevin, Tabitha, and Andrew
keppsite 