The 21st century saw nine months of peace before international politics and the balance between liberty and safety were drastically and perhaps forever altered. 

Following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, a national dialogue began about what was happening to our country.  The eyes of the world were on the United States and its flagship city that was covered in ash. Many questioned how this could happen and why the government had not taken steps to destroy Al Qaeda before the terrorist group took down the Twin Towers.

In our grief and in our fear we started to rebuild and collect ourselves. The United States went to war, arguably without considering what our battle would look like.  Most importantly, representatives in Washington began writing legislation that would address this new threat to our national security.  In our fear and our anger we were willing to sacrifice our liberty in order to keep our families safe.

This September will mark 15 years since 9/11. Technology has developed drastically since then.  The Internet has grown out of its infancy,  especially with the explosion of smartphones becoming an essential part of our everyday lives.  A majority of Americans now carry palm-sized computers with them everywhere they go. Smartphones are typically the last thing we interact with before we fall asleep and the first thing that greets us in the morning.

With the backdrop of this unavoidable and intrusive technology that facilitates our modern lives and the sense of safety that was stolen from us, the current conflict between Apple, Inc. and the FBI will make a lasting impact on cyber security and the protection of intellectual property. Last week Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote an open letter to customers in defiance of a U.S. magistrate order for the company to develop software that would allow the FBI to unlock  the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters responsible for the San Bernardino terrorist attack in December, without erasing the phone’s data.  While this is not a remarkable court order in and of itself, the implications of it may shape the future of privacy law for the Internet and smartphones.

The motivation behind the search warrant is simple. The FBI believes there is evidence vital to national security on this particular phone. If the information desired by the FBI was in a safe instead of an iPhone, the solution would be less ambiguous.  However, Cook argues in his letter that unlocking the phone would set a dangerous precedent.

“In the physical world, (software bypassing encryption) would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes,” Cook said.

The problem is not that the information in the phone should be protected; no reasonable argument is suggesting that the information itself should be protected.  The core issue is that to create what Cook claims to be a “backdoor” passed the encryption securities of the iPhone would in turn create a tool that could potentially be used by the government to invade the privacy of anyone with an iPhone. 

“The implications of the government’s demands are chilling,” Cook said. “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.”

DePaul senior Andrew Elam, a network security engineer, is a firm supporter of Cook’s stance on this issue.

“Finally a company or group is standing up to the federal government, who is ever more encroaching on our information, private and electronic,  papers and devices,” he said. “It is high time that we as a nation hashed some of the data and information privacy and security issues out.”

For Americans like Cook and Elam, a backdoor that bypasses iPhone’s security is unethical.  But not every corporation agrees with him. According to Elam, Samsung has not gone through the efforts Apple has to prevent unwarranted monitoring.

“If you read the Samsung Smart TV End User License Agreements, they state verbatim: ‘Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition,’” Elam said. “Your TV (is) being used to record what you say, and you’d better believe that Samsung would cooperate with a subpoena if asked for records of words spoken in front of your TV.”

While this surveillance can certainly be painted as malicious, it is important to remember its most notable origin: the unwarranted attack on the United States and subsequent threat of anthrax attacks.

President George W. Bush said during the signing of the controversial Patriot Act that “one thing is for certain, these terrorists must be pursued, they must be defeated and they must be brought to justice.

“And that is the purpose of this legislation,” Bush said. “Since Sept. 11th, the men and women of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been relentless in their response to new and sudden challenges.  We have seen the horrors terrorists can inflict.”

Years later, the world watched in horror as bloody and terrified people ran screaming through the streets of Paris.  And while the world was still bleeding from that assault on a peaceful city, we were heartbroken by the events of San Bernardino, which set these events with Apple in motion.

It isn’t clear how this confrontation with evil will conclude itself.  We are a nation desperately searching for peace, for a return to the way our lives were in the all too distant 20th century. But by publishing his letter, Cook took a stand for the Americans who refuse to limit our secrecy and liberty in the struggle to maintain national security. Now is a time to stand up to violence and terrorism, but not without respecting the freedoms of the American people.