By: Chris Bradshaw, Satyendra Emani, Ryan McCordick

A battle between the FBI and phone companies like Apple and Google has been going on for the past few days. These companies are introducing “phone encryption,” a feature where phone data such as pictures, music, videos, call logs, app data, and text messages cannot be read without a password. The FBI is fighting against this feature, with FBI Chief James Cormey saying it “…allow[s] people to place themselves beyond the law,” and that “The notion that someone would market a closet that could never be opened — even if it involves a case involving a child kidnapper and a court order — to me does not make any sense” (Huffington Post).

This issue came to attention when both companies announced encryption by default in the newest updates of their mobile operating systems. Many supporters of the new feature argue that the 4th Amendment would be violated without this feature, and that the extra barrier between thieves and your data would help prevent theft of sensitive data. The encryption method used cannot be cracked easily, as it would take months or even years to get the data, and any crimes that could’ve been prevented would’ve already happened by then.

The FBI can still lawfully tap into phone calls and text message conversations from the carrier. Many people argue that the FBI could have their own “door” for the data, but again, that isn’t feasible. If criminals find this “door,” then many phones will be at risk, and it’ll be as if there isn’t any encryption at all in the first place.

In a survey we conducted of 68 students, about 85% of them said “Yes,” when initially asked whether or not they support phone encryption, while the remaining 15% said “No.” After given information about how phone encryption can impede FBI investigation, many people changed their minds. The results evened out at a near 50/50 split, where 52% said “Yes,” in support for encryption, and 48% said “No.”

Some argued it was a matter of privacy, that the 4th Amendment should be protected, and that the FBI should have a warrant to search phones. A lot of students wanted a middle ground where the FBI should have access when needed, but criminals shouldn’t, which, as we explained before, wouldn’t be possible. Some also said that the safety of the greater outweighed the need for privacy.

The FBI shouldn’t rely on mobile devices to gather intelligence and data on criminals. With many privacy safeguards and features rolling out, spending time and money to try and gain access to a device that may not even hold enough evidence to make an arrest isn’t a good use of resources. Law enforcement agencies should try to aim for physical evidence first – digital evidence can be erased, corrupted, overwritten, and incomplete, whereas physical evidence is harder to destroy, and won’t take months or years to obtain.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/25/james-comey-apple-encryption_n_5882874.html