On Feb. 16, a federal judge ordered Apple to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone that belonged to San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook.

About a dozen demonstrators showed up Tuesday night to show their support for Apple.
(photo by Patricia Sanchez)

Demonstrators rallied in front of the Apple store at The Grove on Tuesday to support Apple’s decision to deny the court order. While the group of supporters was small, individuals felt strongly about what they called a fight for security and privacy.

“Privacy is important to me, and I want to thank Apple for standing up for my privacy,” said Cheryl Caskill, one of the deomonstrators. “Once [privacy is] gone, it’s hard to get it back. It’s like what Benjamin Franklin said, ‘Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.’”

The demonstration was part of a global protest organized by Fight For the Future, a nonprofit organization.

Tiffiny Cheng, co-founder of Fight For the Future, said Tuesday’s protests were to implore the FBI to reflect on their actions.

“It’s people coming together to fight and voice our opinions,” Cheng said. “We’re trying to tell the FBI not to go forward with their order because it’s not just about Apple or our iPhones. I don’t think [the FBI] understands what they’re asking for.”

The FBI’s demands, Cheng said, could lead the government down a slippery slope that limits individual freedom and rights to privacy.

Nicholas Linindoll said he supports Apple because the FBI’s demands are a step in the wrong direction for individual privacy.

“We live in a digital age. We all have so much information on our phones and it’s so important that we have strong encryption and security and no back doors,” Linindoll said. “I’m just here to support this fight because unfortunately I think the FBI is not defending our rights.”

Support of the tech company’s stance spans further than street protests, however, and politicians from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) are proposing bills to keep the government from forcing technology companies to comply with digital surveillance tactics.

The Encrypt Act of 2016 introduced earlier this month by Lieu dictates that a state or political subdivision should not mandate or request manufacture’s, developers, sellers or providers of covered products or services, such as cell phones, to alter security functions in its products to allow surveillance, decrypt or render intelligible information.

Lieu said in a statement that while protecting national security is important, Americans and American businesses shouldn’t have to suffer as a result.

“The terrorist attack in San Bernardino was horrific and the tragic loss of innocent lives demands a strong response,” Lieu said. “I have several deep concerns, however, about the unprecedented court order that forces Apple to create software it does not have in order to provide a ‘back door’ way to weaken its smartphone encryption system.”

In a letter to the FBI on Tuesday, Lieu further expressed his concerns over the department’s decision. While he said he appreciates the FBI’s dedication to protecting the country, he urges them to come to a different decision with Apple.

“The FBI’s demand that Apple write new code to weaken encryption defenses has generated passionate responses from many Americans,” Lieu said. “I read your recent open letter in which you urge folks to ‘take a deep breath’ and ‘use that breath to talk to each other.’ You also argue that the two values of privacy and safety should be ‘resolved by the American people.’ I completely agree with you. That is why I request the FBI’s demand of Apple and the motion to compel be withdrawn.”

Lieu explained that the FBI should not use the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify their actions.

“As a computer science major, I have seen far-reaching unintended consequences when government applies outmoded concepts to our fast-changing technological world,” Lieu said. “Trying to apply an 18th century law to a 21st century technology company should not give anyone any confidence in the result.”

On Feb. 17, Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released a statement with concerns about the precedent that could be set with the FBI’s court order.

“These complex issues will ultimately need to be resolved by Congress, the (Obama) Administration and industry, rather than the courts alone, since they involve important matters of public policy,” Schiff said. “At the moment, we are far from any consensus, but the court’s decision will likely accelerate our consideration of how to weigh the competing privacy, security and competitiveness issues.”

FBI Director James Comey said in a statement Sunday night that the FBI isn’t trying to set any precedents, but rather is seeking justice for the victims of the San Bernardino shootings.

“Fourteen people were slaughtered and many more had their lives and bodies ruined,” Comey said. “We owe them a thorough and professional investigation under law. That’s what this is. The American people should expect nothing less from the FBI.”

Linindoll said he is concerned because he believes the government and the FBI have used the same arguments to infringe on peoples’ rights before.

“We absolutely want the FBI to do their job. We want them to prosecute to the fullest extent. We want them to have the evidence they need,” Linindoll said. “But secure phones save lives. What if you were in China and accused of spying and the Chinese government told Apple they wanted to break into your phone? This could set a precedent not only for United States, but for the world.”