The Forbidden Fruit

In Biblical lore, the Serpent tempted Eve and Adam with the fruit of the forbidden tree.  Eating the fruit--which most Western religions teach was an apple--would give the couple the knowledge of all things.  That is a excellent analogy to what is going on with the FBI and Apple--as the Feds try to force the technology company to hack one of the IPhones owned by the suspects in the San Bernadino terrorist attacks.

By all accounts, the National Security Administration already has the technology to get into a phone like that--but in sharing that technology with the FBI in this case, the process would be compromised as it would become public record.  (Their current use of so called "zero-days" tech is authorized by the secret courts established by the Patriot Act after 9/11)  Apparently, the Department of Justice experts aren't as skilled in hacking so they are left with no other option than to go to the maker of the phone.

But Apple isn't so keen on the idea.  No, they don't want to appear to support Islamic Terrorism.  However, providing the Government with a backdoor way into their products won't sell well with customers--who believe their device should be safe from such intrusion.  What's more, the Federal Government has a very poor record of keeping such information from being hacked by outside forces.  Let's not forget that Edward Snowden revealed the NSA's capabilities to spy on us in the name of "protecting our freedom".

And that is why Apple should fight the FBI and the DOJ.  Today's case may involve known Islamic Terrorists--but the next one may be just "suspected terrorism".  And the case after that will be "suspected child porn" or "suspected wire fraud" or maybe just a few agents with an axe to grind and the technology now available to them to make a person's life a living hell or the kid in a basement somewhere that's good with computers and just used the FBI's routers to access all of your personal information.

So, do we partake of the Forbidden Fruit and give up more of our individual freedom--in the name of "greater security"?