This week there seems to be a battle looming between Apple and the United States Government over the tragedy that happened in San Bernardino, CA, on December 2, 2015. A shooting which claimed 14 lives and left 22 people injured took place at a regional center, the incident was later described by President Barack Obama as an act of terrorism. On the following day, an investigation was launched by the FBI to try and recover any information about the shooters or their affiliates. Apple was summoned by the FBI to assist in the investigation by unlocking the shooter’s government issued iPhone. Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with an open-letter to the FBI and all Apple customers. In this letter, Cook explains that for privacy purposes there is no such ‘Key’ to open the backdoor of an iPhone. Creating this technology would compromise every Apple device to hackers and criminals who could find a way into any customer’s personal records without them knowing it. He also states that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has overreached its power by trying to force Apple to create something that would strain the trust of their clientele.

Can the US Government force a private company to create a product that has never existed? In theory, the federal government should have no right to force a company to do anything that could jeopardize the American public. However, in the eyes of the government they could be saving lives with the information that would be extracted from the phone. In cases of National Security shouldn't the objectives of our elected leaders have trump over big business? Our first priority should be preventing future attacks and bringing justice to those who want to hurt us, but jeopardizing a majority of the American public may be too much of a risk.

Apple also warns of the precedent that would be set if a ruling in favor of the FBI were to come to fruition. Not only would this new technology create a way for hackers to access personal information, it would also give the federal government access to your information. Cook wrote, “The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.”

Now that is a scary thought, a government that knows your location and knows what you say and do all day is a bit disarming. I can feel a rush of 1984 allusions coming to my head. What was that saying,

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
*Privacy is Public*

That’s got a nice ring to it… This case will in all likelihood head to the Supreme Court, owing to the involvement of the F.B.I. and the world’s largest company, Apple. There are still many variables at play: Whichever clown candidate prevails in the upcoming presidential election will surely have a role to play in the process. Also, President Obama has announced that he wishes to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice to replace Judge Antonin Scalia after his unexpected death. Judge Scalia was known as an advocate of individual rights and liberties. He also had a conservative outlook on government intervention with the private sector; meaning he supported a separation of business and government. With a new appointee who is likely to be a liberal, it will be curious to see how the balance of the court is affected.

Apple vs. The United States could potentially be one of the most influential controversies that has faced the country. If/when the case makes it to the Supreme Court, the ruling that is given will set precedents for years to come. Will our personal privacies be waived once again in the name of National Security? Can the U.S. government force a private corporation to build something that is ultimately against who they are as a business? Could either party support inventing something that could jeopardize so many people’s vital information? These are questions that must be answered in the coming years as technology advances and we become increasingly dependent upon these advances.