Case Analysis Apple vs FBI

Case Analysis - Exam Question 1 Parties involved:

Defendant: Apple Inc. Plaintiff: US Government Relevant Facts:

On Dec 2nd 2015, San Bernardino o!nt" #ealt# in$pector S"ed %i&'an (aroo), 'it# #i$ 'ife, *a$#feen +ali), attac)ed at t#e Inland %eional enter in San Bernardino. *#e !nfort!nate incident claimed live$ of 1- people and left 22 'o!nded. (aroo) and +ali) died a fe' #o!r$ later in a $#ooto!t 'it# police. *#e police recovered iP#one 5c on Dec.  in a 'arrant $earc# of (aroo)/$ (aroo)/$ mot#er/$ car. Apple provided provided t#e (BI (aroo)$ ilo!d ac)!p$ t#ro!# midOctoer, and it 'a$ di$covered t#at (aroo) #ad $topped ac)in !p #i$ iP#one $ince Octoer. *#e data left on t#e p#one i$ encr"pted 'it# 253it A4S $ec!r $ec!rit" it",, '#ic# '#ic# ma)e$ ma)e$ a r!te r!tefo force rce attac) attac) on t#e iP#o iP#one ne 5 " t#e (BI (BI nearl nearl" " impo$$ile. Apple enineer$ $!e$ted t#at if p#one i$ connected to a familiar i(i net'or), it 'ill create a ne' ilo!d ac)!p '#ic# 'o!ld #ave t#e mi$$in information et'een t#e Octoer ac)!p and Decemer 2. +ean'#ile, 'it#o!t con$!ltin Apple Inc., (BI tried to re$et t#e ilo!d pa$$'ord 'it# t#e #elp of San Bernardino o!nt" official$ '#o o'n$ t#e p#one. *#e pa$$'ord re$et meant t#at $omeone 'o!ld need to lo in to t#e p#one and enter t#e ne' pa$$'ord efore it co!ld $"nc 'it# Apple$ ilo!d $erver$ aain. Accordin to (BI, (aroo)/$ p#one #a$ iOS 6 '#ic# i$ prorammed to $#!t do'n after 10 failed attempt$ at t#e pa$$ code. (BI i$ $ee)in $oft'are from Apple

to modif" it$ iOS and "pa$$ t#e $ec!rit" feat!re and remove a dela" et'een pa$$code attempt$ t#at/$ !$!all" intended to ma)e r!teforce entr" even more diffic!lt.

Procedure: ivil a$e

Main Issues:

*#i$ ca$e #i#li#t$ a ver" intere$tin i$$!e of privac" v$ $ec!rit", #o' m!c# of diital $ec!rit" i$ re7!ired e$peciall" '#en it come$ to terrori$m. *#i$ i$$!e #a$ m!c# roader  per$pective t#an 8!$t ao!t !nloc)in one p#one. If 'e loo) at t#e ier pict!re, t#in$ et complicated '#en 'e introd!ce diital information from $mart p#one$, $mart'atc#, car$, or an"t#in connected to internet. *#e i$$!e i$ not '#et#er Apple $#o!ld !ild $oft'are to "pa$$ t#e $ec!rit" mec#ani$m$ in iOS 6 to !nloc) (aroo7/$ iP#one. Main issue lie$ in developin a $ol!tion t#at 'o!ld ive la' enforcement $ome 'a"$ to $top

act$ of terror "et not creatin ac)door into adet$ '#ic# co!ld e provide acce$$ to #ac)er$. In t#i$ ca$e, ot# $ide$ are aidin " it$ d!tie$ to protect it$ c!$tomer$. FBI’s aruments:

•

Direct data e9traction from t#e p#one 'ill #ave more information t#an t#e ilo!d

•

ac)!p $ince ac)!p doe$ not contain all t#e information availale on t#e p#one. *#e co!rt$ are rel"in #eavil" on t#e All !rits Act  of 1;6 '#ic# ive$ t#em t#e a!t#orit" to order Apple to #ac) t#e iP#one !nder a