News and Articles

Apple vs. FBI – Technology and the New Legal Frontier

Yogi Patel - Wednesday, March 09, 2016

Mobile devices in general have arguably taken over as the main portal through which significant portions of people in our society communicate. And with the advancement of technology, the mobile device is now and will continue to become, the main portal through which we engage in every day transactions. We can now use our phones to engage in banking, ordering groceries, booking vacations, researching novel questions, storing our personal information and to do just about anything else we want. The amount of data that can be derived from our mobile devices can reveal just about every aspect of our day-to-day lives. From the websites we visit, to the phrases we search. Our phones, for better or worse, can probably reveal more about us than we could if we tried to provide our own narrative. Think about how naked and vulnerable you felt the last time you left home without your phone. For most of us, it has become a necessity. We truly cannot imagine life without our mobile devices – and this is not going to change anytime soon. We will undoubtedly continue to use our mobile devices to share even more personal information about ourselves. And with this in mind, consider the dispute between Apple and the FBI –which is ultimately between privacy and safety.

The iPhone is known for its nearly impenetrable security features and thus, is one of the many reasons that Apple’s products are considered superior to others in the market place. The latest challenge to privacy comes in the form of the unlocking the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. The FBI has been unable to unlock and access the device and is now relying on the courts to compel Apple to do so. Apple is not complying because it fears future implications of the government’s ability to access their devices.

While the FBI has only requested that Apple help the government access the gunmen’s iPhone, the broader implications of the request are the true cause of conflict and concern here. The government is essentially asking for Apple to create an encryption system that would provide them access to any Apple device after securing a warrant. The Government’s position appears to be carefully considered and narrowly tailored. Many experts consider this case as the “perfect case” for litigating the issue of privacy concerns against the governments need to access incriminating information in the evolving world where technology controls access. Since the case involves terrorism, the government’s interest in encroaching on privacy concerns is less likely to cause a public outcry and provides sufficient justification for the court’s to reach a decision allowing it to gain access to an encrypted system.

Besides the privacy vs. security considerations implicated here, this case also raises the issue of how far the government can go in requiring a business to perform functions that have no financial value to the Company. In this case, the FBI wants Apple to develop a new version of the iPhone operating system, whereby the new versions would allow the government to bypass the security features on its product. The sole purpose of this software would be to allow the government to have access to the data on such phones when appropriate. Apple’s shareholders do not stand to gain financially by cooperating with the government. In fact, developing this software would arguably weaken Apple’s overall security system and potentially have a negative impact on its market-share and subsequently the value of the Company to its shareholders.

The implication of this dispute also extends to how other privileges could be potentially compromised. Given that smartphones such as the iPhone store so much personal data, it is important to note that if the government were given such access, they would ultimately be able to access emails, photos, and text messages. This access would present challenges to right of privacy amongst privileged relationships. For example, confidential communications between attorney and client, marital communications amongst spouses and patient-psychotherapist relationship may be easily penetrable.

Other technology companies such as Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter and Dell understand the implications of this dispute as well. Most have pledged support for Apple and are expected to submit Amicus positions in the pending litigation. These companies also fear that the government will make similar requests thus compromising their security and intellectual property.

 

This Article was co-authored by Asima Chaudhary, an intern at Lloyd Patel LLP and a second year law student at the City University of New York Law School.

 


Recent Posts


Tags

Housing Law Privacy Employment Contracts Westchester County implementing new leave laws Credit History Household Employees Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Newsletter Web Domains Non-Qualified Stock Options National Labor Relations Board Immigration Status Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council NYC Human Right's Law's Unions drug testing Sexual Harassment AirBnB Browning-Ferris Case Executive Negotiation Pregnancy Executive Severance U.S. Department of Labor stocks Arbitration Agreements Selling Business Hairstyle Discrimination Nobel Prize Right to Unionize Postnup Real Estate Law employment discrimination lawsuits NY payroll law Business Law Affordable Care Act Transgender protections Employee Salary Histories Tax-Deferred Savings Fair Chance Act Security Fair Work Week Legislation Wage Theft Protection Act Start-up Ventures Federal Overtime Law New Address Womens Rights Criminal Record Minimum wage marijuana usage Westchester Safe and Sick Time Laws Interns Negotiating Internet Law Workplace Requirements Human Rights Law Ban the Box Payroll Scams Firm Announcements EEOC Filing Requirement Interns as Employees $15 Minimum Wage Joint-Employer Relationship graduate students Fair Play to Pay Act Prenup Alter-Ego Doctrine commuter benefits Interview Series Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. New York City Human Rights Law Domain Name entrepreneur NQSO Attracting Investment LinkedIn Trade Secrets Employment Law Credit Fair Pay and Safe Workplace Executive Order I-9 Verification Facebook Privacy and Litigation Trade Secrets Act Fair Labor Standards Act Freelance Isn't Free Lactation Law Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Apple vs. FBI Health Care federal Department of Labor Sexual Harassment policy Intellectual Property Paid Family Leave Illegal rentals Employment Offer/Agreement Independent Contractor ACA Mandatory Class Action Waivers Public-Sector Union Fees NYC Sexual harrassment law Worker's Rights Fair Workweek Law NLRB Employer Mandate Business Trademark licensing NYC Salary History Law Federal Contractors Overtime Exemptions sexual harassment training Nanny Audit Technology New York Earned Sick Time Act Department of Labor Credit Checks #meToo workplace discrimination Landlord-Tenant Law National Labor Relations Act Overtime Rules Trademark Law Divorce Unionization Corporate Law

Archive

EDIT - blog-container - This controls the styles for the headings

EDIT - BlogTagCloud - Font style

description

  • EDIT  - post-body - Font style

EDIT - side-panel - This is the colour of the sidebar headings

Snap | BC Module - Blog - Blog Description

Snap | BC Module - Blog - Blog Title

EDIT - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Date - This is the date box style

EDIT - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Post Content - Font style

EDIT - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Post Title - Heading style

EDIT  - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Sidebar Content - Font style

EDIT - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Sidebar Title - Heading style

latest blog title snap text

 

Disclaimer: Nothing on this website is or should be construed as legal advice.
An attorney-client relationship does not exist with our firm unless a signed
retainer agreement is executed, and we do not offer legal advice through
this site or any of the content located on it. For legal advice for your
particular circumstances, please contact us directly.