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

The government is again asking Apple to unlock iPhones. Here’s why you should care.

Apple has so far refused to help law enforcement.

US Attorney General William Barr speaks at a press conference about the shooting at the Pensacola naval base, January 13, 2020. 
US Attorney General William Barr speaks at a press conference about the shooting at the Pensacola naval base, January 13, 2020. 
US Attorney General William Barr speaks at a press conference about the shooting at the Pensacola naval base, January 13, 2020.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Sara Morrison
Sara Morrison was a senior Vox reporter who covered data privacy, antitrust, and Big Tech’s power over us all for the site since 2019.
Open Sourced logo

The federal government is preparing for another fight with Apple in an ongoing battle for access to encrypted iPhones. Though this round is about unlocking the device of a mass shooter with suspected terrorist ties, the result may determine how far, and how easily, the government can reach into your phone, too.

Attorney General William Barr said in a press conference on Monday that the December mass shooting on a Pensacola, Florida, naval air station — which resulted in the deaths of three US sailors as well as the shooter, Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani — was an act of terrorism. He then called on Apple to give law enforcement access to Alshamrani’s two iPhones to see if he communicated with terrorist groups or had any co-conspirators. (Because iPhones have a security feature that wipes a phone’s data if too many incorrect six-digit passcodes are entered, law enforcement can’t simply guess at the right one.)

Barr’s very public demand — and complaints over Apple’s non-cooperation thus far — were likely meant to ramp up pressure on the company to comply.

“We have asked Apple for their help in unlocking the shooter’s phones,” Barr said in the conference. “So far, Apple has not given any substantive assistance. This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital evidence once it has obtained a court order based on probable cause.”

In a statement to Recode, Apple said that it “reject[s] the characterization that Apple has not provided substantive assistance in the Pensacola investigation” and said that it has been working “tirelessly” to help the FBI investigate the shooting. “We responded to each request promptly, often within hours, sharing information with FBI offices in Jacksonville, Pensacola and New York. The queries resulted in many gigabytes of information that we turned over to investigators. In every instance, we responded with all of the information that we had,” Apple wrote.

But the company made it clear it does not plan to give the US government a way to decrypt iPhones: “We have always maintained there is no such thing as a backdoor just for the good guys,” Apple wrote. “Backdoors can also be exploited by those who threaten our national security and the data security of our customers. Today, law enforcement has access to more data than ever before in history, so Americans do not have to choose between weakening encryption and solving investigations. We feel strongly encryption is vital to protecting our country and our users’ data.”

That stance mirrors its refusal four years ago to give the FBI access to a locked iPhone belonging to San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. Back in 2016, the FBI obtained a court order demanding that Apple create a back door into all of its encrypted devices so law enforcement could access them. Apple refused, saying that protecting the privacy and security of its customers — including those in countries like Russia and China — was more important than the government’s demand.

The American Civil Liberties Union seems to agree. “The government’s demand would weaken the security of millions of iPhones, and is dangerous and unconstitutional,” Jennifer Granick, ACLU’s Surveillance and Cybersecurity Counsel, told Recode in a statement. “Strong encryption enables religious minorities facing genocide, like the Uighurs in China, and journalists investigating powerful drug cartels in Mexico, to communicate safely with each other, knowledgeable sources, and the outside world.”

The 2016 case wound its way through the legal system until the FBI found another way to access the device, without Apple’s help: It paid hackers $1.3 million to find and exploit a software flaw. The government dropped its case, and the courts never had to rule one way or the other.

Now, Barr has reopened the debate. Should it reach a court this time, the decision may have ramifications well beyond phones that belong to mass shooters. And that’s been Apple’s point all along: If the government can force it to crack one phone or include a back door in its products, then there’s nothing stopping the government from accessing every device — including yours.


Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.

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