e

Digital Security In The Information Age

With technology expanding at an accelerating pace, can legislative bodies keep up the pace?

September 11, 2001: Deadly attack on the World Trade Center prompts swift passage of the PATRIOT Act, granting Government surveillance over many things like phone calls, monetary transactions, and digital communications like email or texts. It is widely popular in the direct aftermath of the tragedy.

December 1, 2012: Former CIA employee, Edward Snowden, leaks thousands of pages of classified NSA documents to journalists, revealing the agency’s extensive oversight over the data and communications of US citizens. Briefly sparks public debate over National Security vs. Information Privacy.

December 2, 2015: Terrorists, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, fire into a crowd in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 and injuring 22. The shooters are killed later that day, but Farook’s iPhone is recovered by authorities.

March 1, 2016: FBI Director, James Comey testifies in front of Congress to argue the case that Apple should be forced to unlock the phone because "The notion that privacy should be absolute, or that the government should keep their hands off our phones, to me just makes no sense given our history and our values."

February 16, 2016: Apple releases a public letter from Tim Cook, justifying their choice not to cooperate with the Bureau on this issue. Cook says “Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.” He compares the creation of this digital backdoor to a masterkey, “capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.”

Remember this?On April 10, 2018, Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg testified in front of Congress regarding his site’s mishandling of user data. Congress, with an average age of 57, demonstrated its lack of technological literacy during the two-day hearings with confusing and nonsensical questioning.

Refusing to back down.Apple CEO, Tim Cook was prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court. The legal battle between Apple and the FBI ended in a draw. But Cook, as well as many others, know that the conflict is far from over.

“...so we had a choice to just blindly do what the institution said to do, or to fight. And we

just fought." -Cook at the University of Glasgow

Timeline of Events

February 9, 2016: Both the FBI and NSA are unable to break into the terrorist’s phone and request help from Apple who would be able to create a one-time workaround for the encryption. Apple refused and FBI had a court issued order made to Apple to unlock the phone. Apple refused again on the basis that this would create a legal precedent for any iPhones to be unlocked in the future.

The IssueAfter the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the FBI recovered

the iPhone of one of the shooters. The security features on the device would erase all onboard data after 10 failed attempts at

the passcode, so the FBI ordered Apple to engineer a workaround for them to crack into the phone to access potentially crucial

data. Apple refused, worried that complying would set a precedent for the Government, or even other hackers, to have

access to all iPhones and the user data stored on them.

Public OpinionThis legal battle characterized nationwide debate on whether Apple should or should not unlock the iPhone.

● Supporters of Apple’s position pointed at the consequences that the 2001 PATRIOT Act had on personal privacy and argued that the Federal Government should not be granted even more overreach over the digital data of citizens.

● Supporters of the FBI argued that the safety of Americans must be considered, especially after such a deadly attack, and that Apple should comply with whatever Federal Authorities deem necessary for public safety.

Polls taken by Mike Blumenthal

Potential ConsequencesWhile support for the PATRIOT Act was high in the years immediately following 9/11, public opinion regarding

government surveillance has steadily declined over the years as society becomes increasingly dependent upon technology and

individuals have become more aware of the extensive government surveillance over their data.

● A Gallup poll from 2003-04 shows 69% of respondents saying that the PATRIOT Act goes “too far” or is “about right”. A poll done by the ACLU in 2015 showed public opinion shifted to 82% of respondents saying they felt at least “somewhat concerned” that the government is “collecting and storing the personal information of Americans.”

If courts rule in favor of the FBI’s position in the future, the Federal Government may be granted unprecedented domain over any cell phone that they deem notable to an investigation.

President Obama voiced his support for the FBI in a public address. “I am way on the civil liberties side of this thing. I anguish a lot over the decisions we make in terms of how we keep this country safe,

and I am not interested in overdrawing the values that have made us an exceptional and great nation simply for expediency. But the

dangers are real. Maintaining law and order in a civilized society is important. Protecting our kids is important. “

Tim Cook, any many other software developers believe that this supposed “one-time” tool for breaking through Apple’s encryption would inevitably fall into malicious hands if it were to be created. Cook says it would be like a “master key” for any hacker that wants access to your iPhone.

Possible Solutions

Sen. Orrin Hatch, 84, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, 85, sit on the judiciary committee which often sees hearings regarding science and technology

Rather than pushing through policies that may be harmful to individual liberties, the government as a whole should become more educated regarding these issues of digital data and other technology in order to make the most informed decisions. Representatives who are more technologically and scientifically literate should be elected into office, and more effort should be made to educate current legislators about the issues of science and technology.

Is the Federal Government even qualified to regulate digital data and should we let them?

Legislators seem to have fallen behind

the times on technological issues,

often leading to a brash disregard for digital privacy and

the misuse of governing power.

By Karl Lackner