In 2015, in the alleged terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, the FBI said that investigators found 109 encrypted text messages with an overseas terrorist on the attacker’s phone that it could not read....

In 2015, in the alleged terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, the FBI said that investigators found 109 encrypted text messages with an overseas terrorist on the attacker’s phone that it could not read. The iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, the shooter in the December 2015, San Bernardino attack also could not be opened. In 2016, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., Manhattan district attorney, testified before Congressional hearings that his office had 230 iPhones that might contain crucial information for cases but that the police were unable to break the encryption on the devices. It is near impossible to break the encryption on Apple and Google smartphones because Apple and Google devices use re-engineered software with “full-disk” encryption so that they can no longer even unlock their own devices. This is a classic case of security versus privacy. Law enforcement and the Obama Administration wanted Congress to pass a legislation that would provide law enforcement access to encrypted data with a court issued search warrant. Tech companies argue that to make this possible it would compromise the security of data on all devices worldwide. Also, if such a “key” or “backdoor” existed, oppressive governments such as China, North Korea, Russia, etc., would demand this technology. Should Congress pass the legislation requiring a “key” for law enforcement to unlock encrypted smartphones? Explain?