Would Apple's "Backdoor" Create More Issues than it Solves?

taken from http://imgur.com/mhYai1M

The decision of whether Apple should be forced to create a system to unlock the phone of the San Bernandino shooter has tremendous implications on the future of the security of our information, and this precedent will be the first step in a series of decisions that will either continue to limit or dangerously expand the exposure of our personal data. Apple’s argument for denying the request, backed by what seems to be a general consensus among tech companies and security experts, is based on the possibility that creating this “backdoor” would essentially be creating a master key that can be used to hack into any iPhone in the future, and the technology would eventually leak to hackers and criminals, sacrificing the security of encrypted personal information everywhere. 

It’s important for the FBI to have the capability to access devices if it leads to solving a crime, especially when it’s related to a large tragic terrorist case. This seems clear cut, although in this case both sides’ arguments are grounded. On one hand, tech companies like Apple are usually cooperative when it comes to assisting law enforcement and this is important as it expands the resources and reach of the investigation. On the other hand, the more often companies design ways to circumvent their own systems, data security experts suggest the more likely it is that criminal and government hackers will figure it out and be able to do the same. So although intentions are good, one could argue a vicious cycle will be created if the request is followed, in which data-based companies are forced to create the tools of their own demise, resulting in more hacker crimes and dissatisfied customers. Security professional Rich Mogull explains such increased exposure and the civil rights implications setting this precedent would entail:

…No legal case applies in a vacuum. If this goes through, if Apple is forced to assist, it will open a floodgate of law enforcement requests. Then what about civil cases? Opening a phone to support a messy divorce and child custody battle? Or what about requests from other nations, especially places like China and the UAE that already forced BlackBerry and others to compromise the security of their customers?

And once the scale of these requests increases, as a security professional I guarantee the tools will leak, the techniques will be exploited by criminals, and our collective security will decline. It really doesn’t matter if it’s the iPhone 5c or 6s. It really doesn’t matter if this is about dead terrorists or a drug dealer. It doesn’t matter what specific circumvention Apple is being asked to create.

Donald Trump also weighed in after Apple’s refusal, siding with the government to say the technology would only be used once in this particular case to “find out what happened and why it happened.” According to legal and security experts, this is simply not the case. Because no precedent currently exists for law enforcement to coerce companies to actually create tools to hack their own security, and due to the likeliness of the techniques created spreading into the wrong hands, the outcome of this situation goes far beyond this one iPhone.

The population is about evenly split in a USA TODAY poll conducted by SurveyMonkey on whether they support the FBI’s request. But if we look at some more recent developments, the FBI’s motives and handling of the investigation thus far have become a little foggy. It turns out engineers from Apple have already been very involved in helping law enforcement access the phone, as they always do, and they are just now being publicly called out and being made to look like their refusal is all a marketing scheme. 

What didn’t come to light during the original request the public saw along with the letter to Apple customers was that a San Bernandino official reset the iPhone’s password in an attempt to access information shortly after the attack, and according to Apple, doing this made the information in the phone impossible to obtain without creating the "backdoor" that sacrifices the security of all devices. It was later revealed the orders to attempt to reset the phone were given to San Bernandino county by the FBI, and Apple suggests if this hadn't happened, they would have had better luck accessing the information using other methods that don’t break down their entire operating system. So it seems the FBI either set this situation up to willingly use this large emotional case to catalyze a favorable legal precedent that might make their jobs easier in the future, or made an early mistake handling the iPhone when it was first retrieved and wanted Apple to tend to their screw-up, or maybe a combination of both. 

So Apple at least deserves some credit for protecting the population’s information instead of immediately being used as a scapegoat to cover the FBI. Not to undermine the importance of law enforcement, this tragedy, and figuring out all the details, but if it will really sacrifice data security for years to come (as experts say it will) in an increasingly data-based country and world, forcing Apple to create this key to all of its encrypted information will likely create more security problems than it solves, inducing more technologically able criminals for law enforcement to deal with. Apple made a socially conscious decision denying the request.

An Undermined "Social" Problem

The 2016 election is unique in many ways. Millenials and younger people are increasingly encouraged to get more involved with their political process, at least in part due to anti-establishment candidates like Bernie Sanders. The extraordinary rise of Donald Trump continues to perplex non-supporters from both parties. The technology and social media outbreak is revealing trendy, yet important issues, which are now more intensely heating up in the minds of new voters.

One critical issue is overshadowed on many platforms by the likes of foreign policy, gun control, and healthcare: the discouraging and unanswered system that is social security. The problem arises with the projected exhaustion of the money reserved in the public trust fund. According to the Social Security Administration, over time program costs will overcome tax revenue and the administration will begin depleting the reserves, until taxes will only cover about 75% of the promised benefits after 2037. This is unless we see legislation that increases taxes, reduces benefits, increases the retirement age, or a combination of these. But conservative opposition results in stagnant efforts, and even the two major Democratic candidates aren't differentiating or focusing many arguments on providing a long-term solution, which could make social security a strange concern for the next few years. 

It seems many young people have casually scrolled past this significant issue as it appears on their timelines, and people seem to passively assume this problem will be fixed by the time it affects them. What much of the public might fail to realize is that the current system doesn't place enough importance on the well-being of retired individuals, and is not yet pointing towards a particular brand of solution. The recession and the slow recovery has caused most retirees to make up two-thirds to all of their income from the program, which pays a an average benefit of $1265 per month. The tax rate is currently 6.2% for both workers and employees. With the solution currently coming down to tax increases vs. benefit cuts, this will make it increasingly dissatisfying for young aware workers to contribute a portion of their earnings to the program. 

The only two sources of funding the government allows the Social Security Administration to rely on are tax revenues and the social security trust fund. The administration is not permitted to take debt, which means when taxes aren't enough to pay the benefits in a given year, and the extra money in the trust fund is depleted (which the administration expects to by 2037), by law, those receiving benefits will have their payments directly reduced to “the level that can be sustained by tax receipts in a given year,” so basically, whatever part of it they can afford at the time. There is no current acknowledgment of a solution, even considering this is money people pay out now to live comfortably at the only time in their lives when they probably have no other reasonable means of producing income. So under the current legislation and projections, people who are expected to receive benefits in 20 years are blindly contributing to the program and practically just hoping the government will be in a good enough position at the right time to provide their full promise. This system is not consistent with being "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government."

The US government has a skewed perception of people’s retirement money. For the last few decades, tax revenues have been above benefits paid out, leading to a surplus that has become the trust fund, which is a safety net meant to provide benefits during a pessimistic forecast. The Treasury department borrows from this surplus, and instead of issuing regular Treasury bonds to the taxpayers, they issue intragovernmental bonds to the department. These bonds are not included in national debt GDP ratios, and don’t represent actual debt from the US government like treasury bonds; they are nothing more than an IOU from one department to another. So not only does the government disallow this administration from taking on debt to pay retirement benefits, they also borrow money from this department’s fund and mask it from actual economic presence. The problem is this money they are borrowing, in essence, doesn’t belong to the social security department or even the government – it is a retirement fund for citizens of the US. And if the department controlling citizens' money can lend it out from the fund, why can’t it say it will borrow if there isn’t enough to pay its obligations?

What further contributes to the financial black hole that is the current social security system is the way the benefits and the related taxes on the benefits are calculated. As of now, most of the people who pay any taxes on their social security benefits are among the relative high-income earners in the country. The IRS takes taxable income and adds in half of your social security income, and if that number is higher than specific thresholds, the percentage of your benefits that get taxed is increased. According to the Social Security Administration, however, as inflation drives wages up this group will continue to expand into the middle class as more retirees will pay a portion their benefits back to the government in taxes. What’s most questionable is that nearly every IRS formula adjusts for inflation, however this one doesn’t. 

Also, the cap on the level of wages subject to social security tax is stuck at about $118,000. This means high-income workers aren't paying as much of their income in social security tax proportionally as everyone below the cap. Perhaps the justification for this limit is that people earning that high of an income should be able to retain more of it for personal retirement use, considering they probably won't be benefiting as much from social security. But again as inflation drives wages up, more of the middle class will pass these thresholds and the people who can't afford it will still be covering the unfunded benefits. So at least one overdue reform would be to raise the level of income subject to the tax keeping in line the high-income workers with the average taxpayers, not just to another fixed number, but a variable that is fair to all workers. The argument to eliminate the cap, like Bernie Sanders has advocated for, is another story.

The way the social security system is set up sheds some light on how the government views the golden years of its citizens, and in turn how legislation might pan out. But at this point, we will hit a stopping point in 20 years and the system needs a change. Until then we're waiting for something that will invoke confidence into the younger workforce to trust the social security system moving forward. Considering they will either get taxed more, have to work for longer, or lose up to 25% of their promised benefits, it seems that contributing to social security for young people today is like an investment that bets on favorable legislation and a positive economic outlook for the future, and just like any other investment, it's subject to risk and economic downfalls. However, this can't be accepted as the norm. If people are required to pay the tax, they deserve a lasting system that will truly guarantee all benefits through the years, regardless of the timing and political outlook.

So are people supposed to just hope that by the time they reach retirement, conditions have been well enough and there has been proper legislation that provides their full benefits? Shouldn’t benefits be increased with inflation like most other key IRS formulas and the rising cost of living benefits, so that higher wages don't propel lower earning retirees into an increased benefit tax? Should a public retirement system contain this level of inherent risk, to the point where it is a possibility that if Congress can’t come to an agreement, people will not receive up to 25% of their obligated benefits? When you see a big chunk of your money get taxed for social security, you shouldn't have to wonder if it's going to be worth it, or be waiting for legislative change. This is another governmental instance with a systemic fault, why it’s an important problem this new wave of young voters might overlook. They should expect our next president to initiate a permanent fix for the social security system, not just a tool to further extend—and most likely exacerbate—the problem. But what is the solution?

Various candidates have expressed significant views on social security. Bernie Sanders wants to eliminate the cap on the level of wages subject to the tax and impose the 6.2% tax on investment income, which would be huge blows to Republicans and high income earners, but like many of his proposals, it's hard to see legislation like that actually going through in the current political climate. Clinton focuses on women and caregivers whom the system is neglecting, promises not to cut it or raise the retirement age, but her options for funding are vague. Republicans have a more charged view of the current system. Donald Trump has previously expressed his views to raise the retirement age, and in 2015 claimed we should cut foreign spending to infuse large amounts of cash for social security funding. Ted Cruz called social security a Ponzi scheme in 2011, and now has only expressed his intent to raise the retirement age. Rubio would gradually raise the retirement age, reduce growth in benefits for upper-income seniors while strengthening the program for lower income seniors, and exempt seniors who work from the payroll tax (MarketWatch). Either way, the way this election pans out will most likely pave the way towards the solution, whether for better or for worse.

Public Intellectuals and the Modern Path Towards Positive Change

Society has made tremendous advances due to the progressive work of the most prominent public intellectuals throughout history. In a less openly outspoken world, those whose work was focused on advancing society took risks and made sacrifices to get us to the level of equality and tolerance we enjoy today, and we are lucky institutions like the church and our most revered leaders were there to harbor the movements that got us here. But times have changed. Although we’re not perfect, we now live in a country where voicing opinion is accepted, there is an advocacy group for every cause imaginable, we have unions, non-profits, and so forth.

Most of the dangerous and severe discrimination issues like slavery, the lack of women’s rights and civil rights, have thankfully been eradicated. Thus there has been a gradual shift to dig deeper into societal problems to reason out how we can go farther. Furthermore, a shift towards research and evidence-based arguments has accompanied this movement. Combined with all of the biased information on the internet today, the fight to get past the remaining social issues we face begs public intellectuals to try to influence people with informed, reasoned opinions, taking a stance on what is just without personal bias.

Erwin Chemerinsky, prominent legal scholar, author, and current dean of UC Irvine Law, exemplifies reasoning and the analysis of both sides without concern for personal convictions or status endorsements. He is a prominent voice in the field of law and comments on legal issues for the media, but the general public could benefit more directly from his work with a closer affiliation and a larger following. In his article, “The 'Decline' of the Public Intellectual?”  Stephen Mack refutes an argument based on American anti-intellectualism and narrows in on the concept of a public intellectual:

... Any argument for the public intellectual that, like Donatich’s, rests the assumption that common citizens are forever childlike and must be led by a class of experts is politically corrosive and historically dangerous.

So, is there any way of conceptualizing something called the public intellectual that is consistent with democratic values? Of course there is, but it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

As the world becomes more aware and education and research continue dominating intellectualism, the effect is the work of public intellectuals being more critically scrutinized resulting in new job responsibilities.

Crippled by the wicked transformation of big business and political parties, public influence has labeled and separated the population. Like Mack says, intellectualism needs to make the shift from “categories and class” to “function” among public intellectuals—and in turn, across people. Although most of his views would be considered liberal, labeled affiliations should not be the focus of Chemerinsky’s—or any other intellectual’s—contributions to society just because he is a voice in the legal and political fields. Intellectuals should now be more concerned with the level of reasoning that their opinion exemplifies and exactly how it contributes to the public good, not how it promotes any political or religious group’s wishes. Therefore, it becomes the people’s responsibility to try to focus less on whether a source is arguing the liberal or conservative side of issues, and less on whether the arguments are consistent with religious values, but the focus should be on whether the arguments make sense for positive changes, helping cause less harm to people or protecting people’s rights or promoting equality. Chemerinsky’s form of work illustrates the notion of reasoned solutions to society’s major issues. Ironically, this seems to be more consistent with democratic values than the childish battle of our two political parties.  

While writing law reviews and having his Constitutional Law textbook widely used among law schools across the nation, Chemerinsky voices strong opinions on the highest legal workings of the system and its corruption. His 2014 book titled The Case Against the Supreme Court argues that the courts have overall failed the people throughout American history, claiming justices have too often than not ruled in favor of crooked forces ranging from wealthy corporate executives to slaveholders.

In a 2014 NY Times opinion piece on unlawful police conduct, Chemerinsky explains how local governments protect themselves and their officers from liability for unlawful conduct within the criminal justice system. He cites various cases with questionable outcomes, to say the least. In a 2011 case, Connick v. Thompson, where the district attorney’s office withheld crucial evidence to the defense, a man wrongfully spent 18 years in prison until being acquitted and the Supreme Court ruled the local government would avoid liability. In another example, the Supreme Court denied damages to a man who spent 16 days in a maximum security prison and 14 months on supervised release, even though the government had no probable cause to arrest him or use him as a material witness, another clear violation of the Constitution. Chemerinsky goes on to explain, in layman's terms, the legal technicalities behind the difficulty of holding government entities and its officers accountable for unlawful police conduct within the courts. It’s worth noting that the knowledge of similar policies and workings of the system are useful for the public to correctly analyze surrounding issues like police brutality.

In December 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a ban of all Muslims trying to enter the US. Chemerinsky’s opinion on the proposal is made clear in his piece in the Orange County Register: enacting this policy would be horribly wrong because it goes against the Constitution for the government to use only religion to decide who is a danger to society. He cites the only precedent in history, Korematsu v. United States during World War II, where the government placed Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, none of whom ever ended up being convicted of any crimes or found to be affiliated with the war in any way, and many of whom had family members serving in the US military. This case is widely regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. He calls out Trump for actually trying to use this precedent to justify the ban he proposed. Chemerinsky makes a strong point against him.

That being said, the true benefit of his work lies in the informative explanations of the potential justifications for the other side of the argument, even when the proposal came from a guy like Donald Trump. In his same opinion piece, he precedes his personal thoughts by stating, “Discrimination on the basis of religion will be upheld by the courts only if it is shown to be necessary to achieve the government’s compelling interest in protecting national security.” Although it’s an opinion piece and he still believes we cannot let religion decide who to bring into our country, Chemerinsky explains how a suggestion that sounds terribly wrong to many people could potentially be justified according to the government.

It is now up to the reader to form an opinion on whether it is necessary to go to such measures for the purpose of national security. And it is up to researchers and government intelligence to figure out if there are nondiscriminatory alternative legislatures such as allowing more individual screenings.

Trump can be quoted in a November 2015 interview stating there is ‘absolutely no choice’ but to close mosques. If people’s thoughts weren’t so clouded by the media and more people could form their opinions off of evidence-based sources, Constitutional interpretations, and what we learn from historical decisions of our politicians, perhaps more people would be outraged to hear the suggestion of a blatant violation of basic human rights presented by a potential presidential candidate. Chemerinsky’s work contributes to this vital cause of awareness.

This unique type of objectivity is achieved due to the absences of political influences and religious motivations. Chemerinsky does not seem to let a certain religious conviction influence his opinions when it comes to law and the courts, and neither should other public intellectuals striving for influence in their non-religious fields.

In his article, “The Cleric as a Public Intellectual,” Stephen Mack brings up a counterargument to an opinion by Peter Beinart of The New Republic calling for public arguments to be grounded ‘in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all’: 

Beinart’s call for “dialogic neutrality” (as it’s sometimes called) certainly seemed reasonable. But Reason has its own set of problems: First, there is America’s own liberal history. In many ways, American political history is the history of activist theologians from the right and the left. These men and women have been intellectuals of a special kind—people whose religious training and experience shaped their vision of a just society and required them to work for it. They have been key players in some of our most important reform movements, from abolitionism, the labor movement, and civil rights to the peace movements of various generations. And second, there is a kind of absurdity to Beinart’s reason. As Hugh Heclo puts it, the insistence that people of faith sanitize their political rhetoric of any religious assumptions “amounts to a demand that religious believers be other than themselves and act publicly as if their faith is of no real consequence.” It’s not only absurd but unfair, some argue, to ask religious intellectuals to disarm their political speech of its fundamental moral rationale.

We are not always so quick (or always the first country) to bring about a positive change – a prominent example being gay marriage that was just legalized in the US in 2015. Let’s take a moment to compare the influence religion had on two groundbreaking movements: marriage equality and the civil rights movement. This is not to say that the social conditions prior to these changes are comparable, but analyzing the ethical aspects of two movements against the denial of rights might shed some light on the place of religion in intellectualism and in government.

The church played a significant role in the civil rights movement. Major reasons for the movement’s overall success include spokespeople who were considered religious leaders as members of black clergy: Martin Luther King Jr., Andrew Young, Fred Shuttlesworth, and Jesse Jackson, just to name a few. It is no question the church helped these leaders and the leaders of many other early movements gain the desperately needed allegiance of large numbers of people.

On the complete opposite side of the religious push-for-equality spectrum lies the recent gay marriage dispute. In his contribution to the same sex marriage symposium, Chemerinsky attacks an argument to deny marriage equality based on religious liberty. He gets down to the main question of whether society should let religious beliefs justify discrimination. His view is that since religious beliefs about race and interracial marriage exist and are not considered valid exceptions to anti-discrimination laws, people’s rights should not depend on their gender or sexual orientation any more than their race. 

The church was strongly voicing its opinion in a large legal issue, blatantly pushing to deny a group of people that makes up 9 million Americans a basic human right. Radical Catholic extremists have promoted violence on the basis of homosexuality as well, although the church is not directly responsible for this. So although the church blessed the civil rights movement by serving as a foundation, for another group it worked towards their discrimination, victimization, and the denial of their rights half a century later. Referencing Heclo’s quote in Mack’s paper, perhaps there is no need for you to “publicly act as if your faith is of no real consequence”, but instead just realize the consequences of publicly imposing your faith.

A public intellectual in America today advocating for the public good should base their work off of careful reasoning, without biased convictions related to political status or religious beliefs. This is how we can propel society into the most effective social movements in the future. Erwin Chemerinsky’s work showcases these characteristics, making him a unique voice that the public should become more aware of.