opinion | Apple’s opposition to unlocking shooter's iPhone is all for show—and that’s a good thing

In an open letter released early Wednesday morning, Apple has refused a court order to unlock an iPhone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, the shooter in the San Bernardino mass shooting. Although its opposition to the FBI is largely for show, Apple is right in taking a principled stance against the government.

The U.S. government has argued that the bypass software will be used only once, and only for this particular phone in this particular investigation. But the narrative is fiction. Its existence in the first place would prove the iPhone can be compromised. Even if the code is destroyed afterwards, Apple could simply be compelled to re-create it.

Apple is right in describing this as a dangerous precedent: the company could be compelled in the name of national security to compromise privacy and crack an iPhone before a crime is committed. Authoritarian governments who have followed “all due process” could likewise compel Apple’s cooperation. And a “master key” able to open any iPhone would create a tempting target for everyone: hackers, terrorists, even disgruntled employees wanting to hold Apple hostage.

There are wider implications as well: compliance with the court order means that with enough arm-twisting, a business can be coerced to compromise its customers for the sake of national security, creating a disturbing precedent in the power of the people to stand against the government. Other commentators have rightfully pointed out how the government’s actions are a potential violation of constitutional rights. If code is indeed speech, and the freedom of speech is protected, is the government in essence forcing Apple to speak against its will by compelling it to write software the company opposes?

Apple’s hardline stance may not be entirely philanthropic: The tech industry took a bruising after the Snowden files revealed widespread government monitoring and a degree of industry complicity. Since then, Apple has made security a selling point, and would lose significantly if it is seen to acquiesce to the government’s demands. Writing an open letter is an interesting tactic for Apple to employ, and one that very few other companies would be capable of pulling off. By making the dispute as public as possible, the company leverages its greatest asset—an avid fanbase and a very popular reputation—to galvanize support and increase pressure on the government to respect Apple’s rights.

Ultimately, however, creating bypass software would raise a litany of issues fraught with implications regarding privacy and the principles that guarantee American civil liberties. Smartphones are still new technology, with the iPhone introduced less than a decade ago, and this remains uncharted territory. Apple’s opposition to the court order, and the government’s subsequent reaction, could shape the course of technology for years to come.