Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Apple versus the FBI: What Could Have Been

4/5/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Sanjay Dureseti
​

Sanjay Dureseti is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and an associate editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal.

NOTE: Since this article was written, the FBI dropped its case against Apple on March 28 as the bureau was able to unlock the assailant’s iPhone on its own.

In the wake of brutal December 2015 terror attacks in San Bernardino, California, the usual political aftermath of mass shootings unfolded. The issue of gun control once again reared its divisive head. [1] Nativist, anti-Islamic sentiment, spurred by the rhetoric of various presidential candidates, further gripped the national consciousness. [2] But perhaps the most lasting and important consequence of the San Bernardino shootings, other than the loss of 14 lives, has been the developing legal conflict between Cupertino-based technology giant Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI.) Given the California assailants’ jihadist roots, carefully cultivated by years of secret adherence to extremist philosophies, the Bureau wanted access to a locked iPhone that belonged to one of the shooters. When requested to construct proprietary software that would allow “backdoor” access to the iPhone, Apple vehemently refused, citing its commitment to never weaken its security features. [3] In response, the FBI obtained a court order that required Apple’s cooperation, a directive that the tech company intends to fight.  

With both parties set to enter the legal battleground, this case could prove to be a massive landmark in the perpetually evolving dialogue surrounding state surveillance. After revelations of government data-mining brought to light by Edward Snowden, a majority of Americans have become concerned with the potential overreach of governmental institutions with access to increasingly sophisticated technology. [4]


A particularly unique aspect of the FBI-Apple dispute lies in the legal precedent employed by the government to justify Apple’s compliance. Federal attorneys have cited the centuries-old All Writs Act of 1789, which was signed into law by George Washington himself. This ancient piece of legislation is as broad as it is obscure, stating that “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” [5]

Despite the antiquity of this statute, the federal government has often employed it to elicit information from private firms. In the case against Apple, the state is expected to rely on a 1977 decision by the Supreme Court, which, under the purview of the All Writs Act, allowed federal agents to force telecommunications companies to install technology that would record numbers called by specific phones.  In fact, this law had previously been used to force Apple to submit information to law enforcement over 70 times in the past few years, something the company was apparently more willing to do. [6]


​Where this case diverges, however, is in the extent of the FBI’s demands. In previous rulings, the company was only asked to provide data and was not being compelled to generate entirely new technology. In this vein, Apple’s defense will largely rest on the basis of due process and free speech, an argument that has a fairly developed legal foundation. Their main point is that, in creating this software, Apple will be engaging in an act of involuntary self-sabotage, rendered illegal by the principles of the Fifth Amendment. The tech company also invoked another Constitutional clause, arguing that computer code is a form of speech and that forced attempts to undermine it constitute a violation of Apple’s First Amendment rights. [7] Apple’s initial defense filing referenced a 1996 case surrounding Daniel Bernstein, who wanted to export his newly developed encryption software overseas. A Federal District court ruled that Bernstein’s proprietary code amounted to speech and was free to publish his creation.


All of this, however, could be rendered moot, as the FBI recently announced that it might have found a way to independently bypass the iPhone’s security. But, if the case moves forward, it could prove truly momentous in the progression of cyber-regulation. A legal victory by the Bureau could establish a tradition of government agencies requiring that companies hijack their own products. A win by Apple could ensure that corporations have legal leverage in mounting defenses against federal encroachment on citizen data.  Whatever the outcome, its effects will ripple throughout the corridors of American democracy.



[1] Noah Bierman and Evan Halper,“After shooting, Republicans want a 'wake-up call' on terrorism, Democrats on gun control,” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2015, accessed March 23, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-san-bernardino-shooting-national-politics-20151203-story.html.
[2] Steve Holland and Emily Stephenson, “Donald Trump urges ban on Muslims entering U.S,” Reuters, December 7, 2015, accessed March 23, 2016 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump idUSKBN0TQ2N320151207
[3] Tim Cook, “A Message to Our Customers,” Apple Inc., February 16, 2016, accessed March 23, 2016, http://www.apple.com/customer-letter.
[4] George Gao, “What Americans think about NSA surveillance, national security and privacy,” Pew Research Center: Factank, May 29, 2015, accessed March 23, 2016, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy
[5] All Writs Act, U.S Code 28, § 1651, Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1651.
[6] Maura Dolan and Victoria Kim, “Apple-FBI fight over iPhone encryption pits privacy against national security,” Los Angeles Times, February 18, 2016, accessed March 23, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-me-fbi-apple-legal-20160219-story.html.
[7] Steve Lohr, “Analyzing Apple’s Argument That First Amendment Applies to Its Code,” New York Times, February 25, 2016, accessed March 23, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/technology/in-apple-case-addressing-the-legal-status-of-code.html.

Photo Credit: Flickr User SimonWhitaker

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​