So where does the law fit into all this? Very simply, it boils down what the Founding Father’s drafted in the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search 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.” When law enforcement seek information from a private citizen or company, they are served with a subpoena if they are a non-offending third party or a search warrant if they are suspects in a criminal investigation. Legalese aside, the basic rule is that the government cannot just enter your home or seize documents without “probable cause,” i.e. good justification for entering or taking a private citizen’s property.
The Apple case is a bit more complex than a simple search warrant of a home where a criminal enterprise is possibly occurring. The FBI’s demand that Apple access information on a customer’s phone goes a step farther. It essentially requires that Apple develop a program to hack into its own phone. In effect, it is requiring Apple to break into a customer’s private property. This would be tantamount to a private home security company being asked to break into one of its customer’s homes due to suspicions of illegal activity and retrieve items for the government. This is not a simple case of turning over passwords or security codes; it is breaking and entering sanctioned by the federal law enforcement. Apple’s lawyers are correct that it places its customer’s privacy rights in serious peril when a company, charged with maintaining and guarding their customer’s privacy, must in fact hack into their customer’s own phones. That is going beyond what is required of a private entity.
In sum, it creates a dangerous and slippery slope when the FBI can turn private companies on their customers in furthering their criminal investigations. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if this would come to fruition. Apple is well within the right to refuse such a demand.