Three Syracuse University professors provided different perspectives on the Apple vs. FBI legal battle Friday, but all agreed on one thing: the case has major implications for cyber security worldwide.

The panel, which focused on the order for Apple to help the FBI break into the phone of San Bernardino alleged shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, was held by the School of Information Studies on Friday afternoon in Hinds Hall Room 347.

The three speakers included Kevin Du, a professor in the College of Engineering and Computer Science; Bill Snyder, a visiting assistant professor in the College of Law; and Yang Wang, an assistant professor in the iSchool. There were about 40 people in the Katzer Room at the start of the discussion, with more filing in during the panel.

Du discussed the case’s technological impacts, Snyder went in depth into both Apple and the FBI’s legal arguments and Wang focused on security and information.

On Feb. 16, the FBI ordered Apple to create a version of iOS that would allow the FBI to bypass certain security features, such as the feature that causes the phone to delete its data after 10 failed password attempts, the panelists said.

The new version of iOS would also allow password combinations to be entered into the phone digitally and eliminate the 80-millisecond time delay between guesses, the panelists said. These changes would help the FBI perform a brute force attack to break into the phone, which means that they would be able to enter password combinations continuously at random until one worked, they added.

On Thursday, Apple filed a motion to vacate the judge’s order, which defended the company’s position of refusing to comply with the FBI’s demand, according to the New York Times.

Du began his portion by posing two basic problems of the conflict to the audience. He asked, “First, can Apple do that? And second, should Apple do that?”

To the first question, Du said, yes, Apple can do that. But for the second question, he said he was concerned about the precedent that the case would set and what the case could mean for the future of cyber security. He said he doesn’t believe it would be a one-time deal, adding that other cases of the government asking tech companies to bypass encryption will be opened in the future.

But Du also emphasized toward the end of the panel that Apple being forced to weaken its own software and technology is as big part of the issue as the privacy concern. He said he thinks Apple should provide the information to the FBI if the company can do so without damaging its own product.

Snyder went through the legal facets of the case during his portion of the panel.

A major factor of the legal argument for the case is the All Writs Act, Snyder said. The act, which dates back to the 18th century, authorizes the government to issue orders they deem necessary. Snyder said Apple’s argument against the All Writs Act is that the demand the government has proposed is too burdensome.

Apple is also arguing that the demand violates its First Amendment rights, Snyder said. The company argues that if the government can’t prohibit speech, they also can’t compel speech, he said, adding that Apple claims that writing code is a form of speech, and therefore, the company can’t be forced to produce it.

Snyder said he doesn’t think that Apple has a strong legal case in either of these instances.

He made it clear that in the end Apple won’t have the option to continue resisting if it loses the legal battle.

“It’s not up to Apple, but whatever it is at the end of the day, they don’t have the option to say, ‘We’re not going to do that,’” Snyder said. “Google did that with France, Yahoo did that with (the European Union). This is the law. Apple doesn’t make the laws.”

Wang started off his portion of the panel by explaining that this issue is not a new conflict, and said it will become increasingly prevalent as society’s dependence on technology grows.

He listed off the implications of the case: cellular devices becoming less secure, hackers becoming better equipped and government having consent to search anyone’s phones for whatever reason.

In his closing statement, Snyder asked a fundamental question to the audience about the implications of the case: “What’s on the balance — the risk for providing this?”

Published on February 28, 2016 at 10:12 pm

Contact Alex: [email protected]