As the battle concerning privacy and security between Apple and the FBI rages on, public opinion about whether Apple should modify its software to help the U.S. government gain access to one of the San Bernardino shooter's remains mixed. However, a trio of privacy/digital rights groups has made it clear where they stand on the matter by taking the tech giant's side in the ongoing debate.
Access Now and Wickr Foundation, which advocate for digital rights, as well as the ACLU, a group that advocates for individual/private rights, have each voiced their opinion and are now making moves to aid Apple directly in court.
Access Now and Wickr Foundation acted together and sought permission Wednesday to submit an amicus curiae, which means that they are not a party in the case but can provide information, without being solicited by one of the relevant parties to do so, that could help determine the outcome. Both have voiced concerns about the FBI's request, citing "the impact that the intentional weakening of digital security would have on global human rights."
Separately, the ACLU filed its own amicus curae, in which it questioned the government's onging efforts to have Apple help crack the iPhone, saying the situation raises "constitutional questions regarding the limits of law enforcement authority."
"While the government can in some circumstances require private parties to support law-enforcement investigations...law enforcement may not commandeer innocent third parties into becoming its undercover agents, its spies, or its hackers," the organization wrote. "If the government prevails, then this case will be the first of many requiring companies to degrade the security and to undermine the trust in their products so essential to privacy in the digital age."
These filings mark the start of what will be a deluge of court pleadings from other parties who wish to weigh in on whether Apple should be forced to help the FBI bypass the passcode security features on an iPhone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, who, along with his wife Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and injured 22 others in San Bernardino, Calif., on Dec. 2.
For it's part, Apple maintains that the FBI asking for the creation of a new, custom version of iOS software is unprecedented and unconstitutional.
As everyone continues to take sides on the issue, the debate is due to reach its next milestone on March 22, when a court hearing to determine whether Apple should be forced to comply with the FBI's request will be held in Riverside, Calif.
Apple may have the government breathing down its back on the matter, but fortunately, it may have a precedent arguing against the court order to use in its defense. In a separate, drug-related case in Brooklyn, N.Y., a federal judge determined that the Justice Department lacks the legal authority to compel Apple to break into an iPhone that was seized as part of the investigation. The tech giant believes that this ruling could help it with the San Bernardino case, while the DOJ said that it was disappointed with the ruling and seeks to have it overturned.
