I know we all care about privacy here. And we certainly don’t like the rampant invasions of privacy perpetrated by our government in the name of fighting terrorism.
But Apple is creating a safe haven for criminal information that represents a dramatic shift from how our laws have always worked. It represents an enormous corporation placing itself above the law in a way that extends to its customers and is more fit for a dystopia story than reality.
But the reality is that Apple’s refusal to provide access to encrypted phones has a much bigger impact on criminal justice than it does on national security.
Phones are an immensely valuable source of evidence for a wide variety of crimes. Domestic violence assaults, sex assaults, homicides, drug dealing will all often have evidence contained on perpetrators or victims’ phones.
The solution under the law in these circumstances is simple. Get a warrant. It has always been the solution under our laws.
Not for apple though.
The issue is that this information cannot be accessed. It’s gone.
Nothing else works this way
The government can get anything we possess through legal means. Bank records, health records, property, diary etc. They can pursue through a court of law the orders necessary to access that information if they have sufficient cause under the circumstances.
Apple wants to say no to that.
Imagine if we did this with something physical
Let’s say a bank advertised safety deposit boxes which were impenetrable. Would that be ok? and I mean literally impenetrable. If the government gets a warrant and wants to see what’s inside because you committed a bunch of crimes and said “I keep all my criming stuff at that one bank” — they still couldn’t get in. Would we imagine that would be ok?
Phone access is important for a lot of serious crime fighting.
In the name of fighting terrorism it seems there are few abuses of power the government will not seek. But phone information is critical for a lot of serious crimes.
In sex assault and domestic violence assault cases information contained on phones can show communications that show motives, accomplices and even confessions. The data can show locations that are critical to putting a narrative together. Sometimes phone companies can have this data, but often not.
Text messages with spouse or significant other victims will often show a lot. Sometimes you can get these from victims, but not always.
Drug dealers will often communicate about deals on their phones.
Homicide cases can be helped immensely by information on phones.
It’s not hard to see.
These cases are far more numerous than the high profile terrorism stuff that catches the headlines. That’s where the political fight may be, but this is where the consequences are.
This isn’t really new
What’s new is that sometime weird has been invented: a lock that can’t be picked. But we have always dealt with locks the same way. If the government has cause and goes through the courts they can get in.
This isn’t a fight about privacy vs. invasion by the government, it is an attempt by an enormous corporation to put itself (and its customers) beyond the rules within which we live. I’m a little disturbed to see so many liberals jumping so rapidly to one side.