In the last few years, technological change has so closely tracked speculative fiction’s recent predictions that describing a technological development as “sci-fi” doesn’t mean very much. That said, in the recent case of FBI vs. Apple—where the world’s second most valuable private company finds itself pitted against the federal government over the matter of de-encrypting one of the San Bernardino shooters’ iPhones—it’s hard not to conjure the pessimism of cyberpunk dystopia. Apple has become a staunch defender of citizens’ civil liberty, and the FBI is advocating yet another expansion of the security state. It’s like a William Gibson novel, only more depressing.



Their battle, however, is likely meant to attract attention. For the FBI, it’s to set a precedent about access to encrypted data, and, for Apple, the goal is to preserve its reputation as a company that places its users’ interests above all else. The details, however, are unsurprisingly arcane and technical.

It began with the awful San Bernardino terrorist attack. The two shooters’ phones were recovered, and in the process of investigating, the FBI felt there was a need to look into Syed Farook’s phone in particular in order to see if he was connected to ISIS. Essentially, the FBI has been unable to access the contents of the phone, partly because Farook disabled online backups 6 months before the attacks, and partly due to an iPhone security feature that erases everything on the device after too many unsuccessful attempts at unlocking. The government is thus requesting that Apple create a modified version of its iOS in order to access the data on the phone. For their part, the FBI claim that the workaround would only affect one phone, and that there is a historical precedent for owners of technology to assist in investigations—as is the case with wiretapping.

Apple has rejected the request for a number of reasons: partly, they say, because it unduly taxes Apple’s resources; partly because, if that precedent is set, more and more requests are sure to follow; and partly due to some generous interpretations of the first and fifth amendments—specifically, that code is speech, and forcing Apple to create code is like forcing them to create particular kinds of speech. (The notion is already being contested.) Apple’s most convincing argument, and where it has found most support, however, is in the idea that the existence of a tool that can crack a phone’s encryption undermines the security of all iPhones, which is true. The mere existence of tools that can break encryption—especially when those tools move back and forth between a company and the intelligence community—radically increases the chance that encryption will be broken for everyone. But with governments pushing for greater surveillance, and digital media companies producing their own forms of intrusion, who, exactly, is meant to defend citizens?

For its part, Apple has been clear that it wishes to defend consumers. And this week, a judge sided with Apple in a similar but separate case, where the U.S. government wants Apple to create a “bypass device” to get into a drug suspect’s phone. But it seems wise to keep in mind that in the past few years, social media and other tech companies have worried consumers as much as the state. Data isn’t safe with private companies either, as large-scale hacks (eBay and Target, to name two) still happen; there’s also the fact that social media relies on users giving up data that is then used to target them in increasingly specific ways.