“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Those words, reportedly written by Benjamin Franklin in a 1755 letter on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War, have taken many interpretations through the ages. They are even inscribed on our Statue of Liberty to instill a sense of our never-ending desire for liberty.
Well, old Ben was a revered founder oft noted for his sage advice. Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac gave the nation timely and wise words to live by for many generations.
But what did he really mean by this particular phrase? Did he look far into the future and mean that our smartphones should contain private information that the government should not be able to obtain in the name of national security?
No. Ben’s letter was written in an entirely different context. He was concerned over the Pennsylvania legislature’s effort to tax the Penn family to pay for the French and Indian war. Privacy was not even remotely an issue in his letter.
Today’s FBI v/s Apple issue is a matter of security over privacy and has nothing to do with liberty. The freedom to have privacy is assumed implicit in our Constitution, but nowhere does that noble document state precisely that issue. The closest the Constitution comes to guaranteeing privacy is in the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
We are guaranteed to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects until the government issues a warrant to examine them. In the case of private information contained on the iPhone owned by a particular terrorist, a warrant was issued. End of argument!
Well, no, it is not the end of this argument. The information is encrypted and locked within the device. The government wants to order Apple to develop software to decrypt that information or provide a means to obtain the password for the device.
The FBI argues that they are only concerned with that one particular iPhone. Apple fears that by allowing the government to require the development of software to peek into this one device, they will open the door to hackers and no iPhone information will be truly secure.
Hillary Clinton was so concerned that her “private” email information would be available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act that she used a private email server during her term as Secretary of State. The government subpoenaed her email server but she had wiped it clean of any data after printing out selected emails she deemed relevant to her government dealings. Unfortunately, there were emails that contained some highly classified information. By using a private email server, she opened the State Department to intrusion of that server and theft of classified information by hackers.
How is this a different situation than the FBI-Apple case? As I see it, there is no difference. There may, or may not, be vital information that our government needs to guarantee national security, and it is on a privately owned device. A warrant has been issued for that information, and no matter who owns the device, that information must be divulged.
In this case, Apple has patents on the iPhone that can’t be violated. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Apple to lawfully provide the means to obtain the information contained within that iPhone.
This has nothing to do with liberty versus security any more than it has to do with the Pennsylvania legislature’s right to tax the Penn family for the French and Indian war. The issue is whether our government can issue a legal warrant to obtain information it deems necessary to provide the security to all of us that we expect from our government. I am sure old Ben would not object.
No comments:
Post a Comment