Apple’s stand against the demands of the FBI to unlock an iPhone used by the suspect in the San Bernardino attack has reached the House. On Tuesday, the lawmakers asked James B. Comey, FBI Director, regarding the demands made to the company.
According to Comey, once the government is able to win the case, it could become a precedent for others. He pointed out that soon, the personal documents and conversations are going to be kept through encryption, which no one can ever have access to it. This, he believes, will challenge all the efforts of the law enforcement that rely on officers getting warrants to have access to personal materials and conversations. He also added that part of their job is to tell the public that a problem exists.
Apple won in a separate case filed, which forces the tech giant to unlock an iPhone when a New York federal judge ruled a decision in favor of the company. The hearing at the House Judiciary Committee took place the following day. But the particular case refers to a different form of operating system, not similar to the one used in the San Bernardino.
On the other hand, Apple’s legal counsel Bruce Sewell insisted that the company’s defiance was not financially motivated. Sewell rejected the suggestions made by the Justice Department, saying that it is not an issue about marketing. According to him, guarding the privacy and security of all iPhone users is the right thing to do, The Guardian reported.
The argument between the government and Apple has been played out throughout public statements, court filings and TV interviews, with the two sides claiming both the higher ground.
Apple was ordered by a magistrate judge in California last month to write software to disable a mobile feature that can erase the data after 10 wrong attempts at entering the password. The FBI wants to crack the password without the risk of erasing the data, Washington Post reported.