Apple’s steadfast refusal to help the FBI access a phone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters has left many scratching their heads. Why would the country’s biggest company deny assistance to the government in a terrorism case—especially when the feds have a warrant to search the device?
In his column Wednesday, New York Times technology writer Farhood Manjoo packs one of the best explanations I’ve read yet into two paragraphs. Manjoo writes, accurately, that the outcome of the showdown will have far-ranging repercussions for our increasingly digital future:
Consider all the technologies we think we want — not just better and more useful phones, but cars that drive themselves, smart assistants you control through voice, or household appliances that you can monitor and manage from afar. Many will have cameras, microphones and sensors gathering more data, and an ever-more-sophisticated mining effort to make sense of it all. Everyday devices will be recording and analyzing your every utterance and action.
This gets to why tech companies, not to mention we users, should fear the repercussions of the Apple case. Law enforcement officials and their supporters argue that when armed with a valid court order, the cops should never be locked out of any device that might be important in an investigation.
Read the rest of Manjoo’s column at The New York Times.
- How to Help Victims of the Texas School Shooting
- TIME's 100 Most Influential People of 2022
- What the Buffalo Tragedy Has to Do With the Effort to Overturn Roe
- Column: The U.S. Failed Miserably on COVID-19. Canada Shows It Didn't Have to Be That Way
- N.Y. Will Soon Require Businesses to Post Salaries in Job Listings. Here's What Happened When Colorado Did It
- The 46 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2022
- ‘We Are in a Moment of Reckoning.’ Amanda Nguyen on Taking the Fight for Sexual Violence Survivors to the U.N.
