Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Read: Apple explains why unlocking the iPhone for the FBI sets a “dangerous precedent”

Apple says the FBI’s request would “intentionally weaken” the company’s products.
Apple says the FBI’s request would “intentionally weaken” the company’s products.
Apple says the FBI’s request would “intentionally weaken” the company’s products.
Andrew Burton/Getty Images

Apple has never unlocked an iPhone for law enforcement, and it doesn’t intend to — even in the fight against terrorism. Apple — which is fighting the US government over whether it should unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooting suspects — argued in a letter to customers that the FBI is setting a “dangerous precedent” of government interference with people’s privacy.

“We built strong security into the iPhone because people carry so much personal information on our phones today, and there are new data breaches every week affecting individuals, companies and governments,” the statement reads. “It would be wrong to intentionally weaken our products with a government-ordered backdoor. If we lose control of our data, we put both our privacy and our safety at risk.”

Apple says allowing the FBI to unlock this specific iPhone would give the federal agency the technology to unlock other devices. Vox’s Timothy Lee, however, notes that Apple has previously implied there may be a way to give access to just this one device.

Apple’s decision has sparked a nationwide debate over the tech company’s responsibilities in the fight against terrorism. GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has called for a boycott of Apple products.

Apple argues that the government’s request goes too far.

“The order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us,” Apple said in the letter. “Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? This would set a very dangerous precedent.”

Read the full statement here.

Go deeper:

See More:

More in Technology

Technology
The case for AI realismThe case for AI realism
Technology

AI isn’t going to be the end of the world — no matter what this documentary sometimes argues.

By Shayna Korol
Politics
OpenAI’s oddly socialist, wildly hypocritical new economic agendaOpenAI’s oddly socialist, wildly hypocritical new economic agenda
Politics

The AI company released a set of highly progressive policy ideas. There’s just one small problem.

By Eric Levitz
Future Perfect
Human bodies aren’t ready to travel to Mars. Space medicine can help.Human bodies aren’t ready to travel to Mars. Space medicine can help.
Future Perfect

Protecting astronauts in space — and maybe even Mars — will help transform health on Earth.

By Shayna Korol
Podcasts
The importance of space toilets, explainedThe importance of space toilets, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

Houston, we have a plumbing problem.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Technology
What happened when they installed ChatGPT on a nuclear supercomputerWhat happened when they installed ChatGPT on a nuclear supercomputer
Technology

How they’re using AI at the lab that created the atom bomb.

By Joshua Keating
Future Perfect
Humanity’s return to the moon is a deeply religious missionHumanity’s return to the moon is a deeply religious mission
Future Perfect

Space barons like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk don’t seem religious. But their quest to colonize outer space is.

By Sigal Samuel