You might have heard: The U.S. government wants Apple to unlock an iPhone 5C that belonged to San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. The order, handed down by a U.S. magistrate judge, demands Apple (AAPL) write new software that would help the FBI get around the passcode so it can search the phone for evidence. And Apple isn’t playing ball.
The FBI was successful in getting the order issued thanks to a law from 1789 for just this kind of situation: A federal court asking a third party to help a different government entity. But that doesn’t matter — this fight has quickly become an ethical one, and both prominent individuals and corporations are making it clear where they fall based on such lines.
So: On which side of the dividing line do the power players in and around Corporate America stand?
ACLU: The civil rights group released a statementcalling the order “an unprecedented, unwise, and unlawful move by the government.”
Amnesty International: In a similar statement, Amnesty said that Apple is, “right to fight back in this case: the FBI’s request… would set a very dangerous precedent. Such backdoors undermine everyone’s security and threaten our right to privacy.”
Anonymous: On its official Twitter feed, the hacker group has been retweeting Edward Snowden and others sharing concerns about the FBI’s request. Anonymous also said the White House, “willfully misrepresents what govt is asking Apple to do in order to expand surveillance powers.”
Edward Snowden: The privacy crusader said on Twitter that the FBI is “creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around.” He added: “This is the most important tech case in a decade.”
Read more at Yahoo.com…
Additional reading: Exclusive: San Bernardino victims to oppose Apple on iPhone encryption