As the tussle between Apple and the US Justice Department ramps up, Peter Jenkinson asks whether the company should unlock a terrorist’s iPhone
AUTHORITIES in the US have started their appeal against a recent judgement where Apple was not ordered to unlock an iPhone. The handset in question belongs to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino attack, and the Justice Department wants to use the device to uncover details of any co-conspirators.
The world's most valuable company remains steadfast in its decision not to assist, claiming this would be the beginning of a "slippery slope that threatens everyone's safety and privacy".
Are they right to refuse or should each request be taken on its individual merits? It would appear that Apple potentially have the ability to assist in the conviction of criminals but are refusing to do so - surely it cannot be this black and white - or can it?
Apple also claims the request would undermine the US constitution. That in itself is a bold enough statement to get the public onside, but the entire debate appears to be more a battle of corporation versus establishment and a discussion around establishing new legal guidelines for future cases in this new technology reliant environment.
The Justice Department claims they need the help of Apple because, if they attempted to guess the passcode to gain access to the information they need, it is likely the auto-erase function would activate. Yes, indeed it would. However, why, in a world full of hackers, do they need Apple to do it? The Justice Department could just pay some high-profile - or very good - hacker to do it for them instead. They, of course, are not willing to do this as they'd be wary of creating a precedent where they condone it only when it suits their needs.
It appears though this case is more important than many initially recognised, as it could establish a new framework for technology companies to co-operate whenever needed and neither Apple nor any other tech company wants that. Apple claims that spies could access iPhone cameras and microphones if the FBI wins this battle, but that does seem to take the side of the scaremongers.
Everyone (almost) wants the co-conspirators caught, but the outcome and implications of this case could have an impact on us all. The general argument is that if you have nothing to hide, why would any of this potential invasion of your data bother you?
The counter argument is that the authorities may, over time, simply implement processes that monitor all of our data, all of the time. No one opted-in for that. Did they?
SNOOPING STATE
In Europe, Google has been ordered to hand over all contact details linked to accounts behind a series of damaging fake online reviews. The reviews have all been targeted against a nursery in the Netherlands, where a judge has told the tech firm to release details of four reviewers, one of them assuming the identity of a dead woman. Google is reviewing the demands.
VERY CLEVER
The Google owned company DeepMind is an AI (Artificial Intelligence) company that has used its collective skills to develop a Go-playing machine. The game of Go is popular in Asia and considered more complex than chess, yet the machine has been beating world champions at it.
HUMAN TOUCH
She is called Chihira Kanae and has been greeting visitors at the world's biggest travel fair in Berlin. Able to answer questions and guiding people around the show may sound fairly standard practice, but Chihira is a robot, with lifelike features and long brown hair, She is the third version of a human form robot from Toshiba and even went so far as to refuse to answer a visitor who asked her out for a date.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here