Apple vs the FBI has been and looks to be, one of the biggest legal debates of 2016 with large groups like Microsoft even speaking out in defence of the iPhone developer in their bid to stop what they call a “dangerous precedent” from being set. The discussion has gone to a higher power with both parties now presenting their discussions to Congress.
Apple’s general counsel, Bruce Sewell, started with an opening point that has been used in every discussion since. Forcing Apple to unlock, or create software that lets the government bypass security, would do nothing but set a troubling precedent for the entire tech industry. In his opening remarks, Sewell said, “building that software tool would not affect just one iPhone. It would weaken the security for all of them”.
The big surprise came when FBI director James Comey agreed in part with this statement. “Sure, potentially. Any decision of a course about a matter is potentially useful to other courts”, these comments come just days after it was revealed that a New York judge had ruled that same act could not force Apple to unlock an iPhone.
The big surprise is that this response from Corney is different to those given previously by the FBI, who have claimed it was never about a precedent and they just wanted this one phone unlocked.
The conversations are just starting and soon governments and companies alike could be looking at new ways of handling encryption, either together or in hopes of protecting people from the other party.
