Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Read: Apple explains why unlocking the iPhone for the FBI sets a “dangerous precedent”

Apple says the FBI’s request would “intentionally weaken” the company’s products.
Apple says the FBI’s request would “intentionally weaken” the company’s products.
Apple says the FBI’s request would “intentionally weaken” the company’s products.
Andrew Burton/Getty Images

Apple has never unlocked an iPhone for law enforcement, and it doesn’t intend to — even in the fight against terrorism. Apple — which is fighting the US government over whether it should unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooting suspects — argued in a letter to customers that the FBI is setting a “dangerous precedent” of government interference with people’s privacy.

“We built strong security into the iPhone because people carry so much personal information on our phones today, and there are new data breaches every week affecting individuals, companies and governments,” the statement reads. “It would be wrong to intentionally weaken our products with a government-ordered backdoor. If we lose control of our data, we put both our privacy and our safety at risk.”

Apple says allowing the FBI to unlock this specific iPhone would give the federal agency the technology to unlock other devices. Vox’s Timothy Lee, however, notes that Apple has previously implied there may be a way to give access to just this one device.

Apple’s decision has sparked a nationwide debate over the tech company’s responsibilities in the fight against terrorism. GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has called for a boycott of Apple products.

Apple argues that the government’s request goes too far.

“The order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us,” Apple said in the letter. “Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? This would set a very dangerous precedent.”

Read the full statement here.

Go deeper:

See More:

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh