Tag

global war on terror

Browsing

Note: The opinions and comments stated in the following article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.

By Glynn Cosker

Managing Editor, In Homeland Security

There is a major argument brewing in the United States because of Apple Chief Tim Cook’s defiant stance on an order to help the FBI hack into San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook’s smartphone: individual privacy rights versus national security interests. Ultimately, Cook is digging his feet in and refusing to hack into a known terrorist’s iPhone.

The ruling Tuesday by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym requires Apple to supply the FBI with highly sophisticated software that will circumnavigate an iPhone’s security measures and allow law enforcement officials to try countless password attempts on Farook’s phone – bypassing the usual ‘self-destruct’ mechanism that erases all of an iPhone’s data after 10 failed password attempts. Cook maintains that such new software – in the wrong hands – “would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.” Cook is correct. However, when acts of terror are carried out in America, there is an argument that the greater good outweighs personal privacy – especially in a criminal or terrorism investigation.

Apple hack San Bernardino
Syed Farook (right). Does his iPhone contain helpful information?

The Bin Laden Question

Apple’s and Cook’s stance is puzzling. The two terrorists involved in San Bernardino were no different in their intent to kill people than Osama Bin Laden – who, as we all know, was spied on for weeks leading up to his destruction by Navy Seals in May 2011. Some may see this analogy as a stretch, but – in basic terms – Osama Bin Laden and Syed Farook were no different from each other in that they were both terrorists out to kill innocent Americans. Killing Bin Laden saved numerous more lives in the War on Terror, and there is a possibility that some information in Farook’s iPhone might also save lives.

So, imagine Cook being asked by the U.S. Government to hack into Osama Bin Laden’s smartphone. Would Cook say “it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products” which is what he said today about hacking into another known terrorist’s iPhone? Farook was a U.S. citizen, while Bin Laden was not. However, a terrorist’s nationality is irrelevant during a global War on Terror. When you yell ‘fire’ in a movie theater (and there’s no fire), your right to free speech dissolves. That’s a fact. When you take up arms as a jihadi terrorist and kill innocent Americans, your right to privacy also dissolves. Notwithstanding, Cook argues in his letter: “We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.” It’s understandable that Cook, and many others, see the judge’s order in this light; but, the U.S. government’s motives here are solely to protect the homeland.

A Bigger Encryption Debate is Needed

Intelligence analysis and cracking codes was vital to winning two World Wars, and they are vital to winning the War on Terror. Not only should Cook comply with the judge’s order this week, there should be a much bigger debate on Capitol Hill about the problems that encryption creates for law enforcement officials and national security agents.

National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers stated on Feb. 12 that encryption is making it “much more difficult” for his agency and others to intercept and analyze the communications of terrorist groups like ISIS. Rogers believes that the November 2015 Paris terror attacks were carried out because officials were duped by the terrorists’ use of new encryption technologies that effectively prevented agents from viewing any of the perpetrators’ smartphone communications.

Rogers told Yahoo News that immediately following the Paris attacks “some of the communications” of the Paris terrorists “were encrypted,” and, as a result, “we did not generate the insights ahead of time. Clearly, had we known, Paris would not have happened.”

Cook is a patriot and clearly loves his country, and I encourage everyone to read his impassioned letter to his customers in its entirety. However, national security trumps individual privacy rights in a world where people enjoying an office party are shot and killed by terrorists on U.S. soil.