Technology and the fight against terrorism

THE attempt by the United States (U.S) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to access the cellphone record of Syed Rizwan Farook, the attacker who on December 2, 2015 killed 14 people in San Bernardino, is an interesting case of the use of technology to disseminate information, plan, promote and execute terrorism, and the critical role of intelligence-gathering in combating this crime. The FBI wants access to the encryption of Farook’s iPhone. Apple, the company that makes this phone, has said no. The U.S. government feels Apple’s action will hurt national security.
There is some merit to the position of both sides and it is interesting to see how the matter will be resolved. Where the cellphone has become a powerful multi-function device and its content can be transmitted in seconds around the world, reaching multiple targets and communities, it is understandable that the FBI sees the importance of having access. The effects of and fight against terrorism is multi-dimensional and borderless, equally as recruitment and purveyors of terrorist information and acts are. Where Apple has succeeded in ensuring a competitive edge, tapping into a large share of the market based on product-quality, inclusive of customer security, it is also understandable the need to protect same.
On February 16, 2016, Federal Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to open Farook’s iPhone. Apple refused and countered in an open letter signed by Chief Executive Tim Cook, : “A Message to Our Customers” that, “The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.”
What we are seeing here is an intersecting conundrum of customer privacy, terrorism crime-fighting and technology. This matter has also taken on a life outside of Apple and the FBI. The powerful American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , weighing in, said the FBI’s demand is an overreach of government and argued that if Apple cedes it would mean a loss of civil liberties in the society. Apple supporters in the U.S. and around the world (U.K, U.S Hong Kong and Germany) protested in support of the tech giant’s fight with the FBI. The U.S. lawmakers and presidential contenders also weighed in and some have argued that while they respect tech companies’ customer privacy rights, equally they demanded that these companies do more to help the government in its fight against terrorism.
In efforts to find a solution on Tuesday, March 1, the U.S Congress (legislature) House Judicial Committee began hearings with the FBI and Apple. FBI Director James Comey Jr is making the case that, “There’s already a door on the iPhone. We are asking Apple to take the vicious dog away and let us pick the lock.” Apple, through its general counsel, Bruce Sewell, countered, “The FBI is asking Apple to weaken the security of our products,” asking “Is it the right thing to make our society overall less safe in order to solve crime?”
It is also of interest to note that during the hearing, the FBI made it known that it has lost an opportunity to capture the data within the 24-hour timeframe of the shooting, given that it had ordered the password be reset to Farook’s iCloud account. Apparently, while the FBI was of the opinion it was being proactive in securing access to the record, it has proven not so. The director in his own words said, “There was a mistake made in the 24 hours after the attack.”
In addition to this hearing, highlighting the complexities of the technology and conundrum for those who are not techno savvy, it provides a public forum to address and hopefully resolve the matter, as the public is being allowed the opportunity to hear competing positions. What is certain however is whatever decision is arrived at it can have consequences for customer privacy in the fight against terrorism, not only in the U.S. but worldwide. As with any technology, the cellphone carries its pluses and minuses. However, the suspect use of this device when terrorism threatens lives, properties, national and global security, it is a thin line to walk.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.