It would be a "dangerous precedent". With this motivation, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, opposed the request of the federal judge investigating the San Bernardino attack in which fourteen people were killed. The judge had asked to crack the encryption code of the bomber's iPhone 5.
Apple therefore challenges the American government and the FBI (the American federal police) who are investigating the massacre.
The US Justice Department is asking Apple for access to a single device, not to redesign its products or "create a new backdoor for its products," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said after a refusal from the technology group. The story, he added, is about what investigators can learn "as much as possible about this case."
Investigators are looking for the smallest details that may be contained in the iPhone 5c of Syed Rizwan Farook, a ruthless killer who, together with his wife, killed the visitors of the Inland center. Farook and his wife were then killed during the firefight with the police, and the killer's smartphone, which ended up in the hands of the FBI, could reveal clues crucial to the investigation.
The phone contains an access code, a very trivial one like the one used by hundreds of thousands of consumers. After 10 incorrect attempts, the phone is locked and only Apple can break the passcode. Hence the judge's request to which, however, the group founded by Steeve Jobs responded spade.
“The United States government has asked Apple to take an unprecedented step, a step that in our opinion – explained Tim Cook in an official statement – puts the safety of our users at risk. We objected to this injunction, as it would have far wider repercussions than in the present court case. These events require the launch of a public debate and we want our customers and all citizens of our country to fully understand what exactly is at stake”.
Smartphones, tablets and computers contain documents, photos, images that are part of the personal baggage of each individual and we, essentially supports Tim Cook, are committed to fully guaranteeing the privacy of personal data. “To jeopardize the security of our personal information is to jeopardize our own security,” is the conclusion. “When the FBI asked us to hand over the data we held, we did” but the personal data is not owned by Apple. Hence the rejection.
