Case Project

INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY vs. SECURITY:

This is the classic case of individual privacy vs. security that has been debated in the public eye for more than a year now. Background: Syed Rizwan Farook, an environmental health inspector, and wife, Tashfeen Malik, on December 2, 2015, killed 14 co-workers and wounded 17 others at the Inland Regional Center, a Social Services Center in San Bernardino, California that provided services for disabled individuals. Farook was carrying an iPhone 5c, which the FBI believed contained information that would assist them greatly in identifying accomplices, and other third parties who assisted in either planning and/or carrying out the attack, provided weapons, or who communicated with Farook about other future planned attacks. The FBI attempted during December 2015 to unlock Farook’s iPhone in order to get access to information that the phone may contain. However, they were unsuccessful in unlocking the phone. Therefore they met with Apple and other tech leaders for assistance in unlocking the phone. The FBI requested of a Federal Judge in California, and received, an Order directing Apple to create software that would allow the FBI to bypass the security feature that prohibited the FBI from attempting no more than 10 times to break the passcode on the phone. Apple defied the Court Order asserting that the Court’s order essentially required it to create a “backdoor” that would undermine the privacy of iPhones around the world. Apple also asserted that it would be bad publicity for it and adversely affect its market share. Apple appealed to the Court of Appeals from the U.S. District Magistrate Judge’s Order. The debate became one of national security vs. personal privacy until such time as the U.S. Justice Department withdrew its request, and asked that its case against Apple be dismissed as an unidentified third party had provided assistance in allowing it to by-pass the phone’s feature that prohibited no more than 10 attempts to unlock the phone’s security. However, the debate is not over, and undoubtedly similar cases will be litigated in the future.

You are to take a position as to whether the FBI was correct in asserting that APPLE should be required to assist in unlocking the iPhone, or whether you believe that APPLE was correct in violating and disobeying the Court Order requiring it to comply with the FBI request to unlock the phone.

Develop a hypothesis that you can support with case law, codified law and statutory law.