Via Urban Institute: “This week [March 23, 2016], a federal judge postponed hearings in Apple v. FBI, one of the most high-profile court cases in the nation—and one that has reinvigorated the privacy versus security debate. This postponement came on the heels of the FBI’s revelation that an outside firm may have found a mechanism to hack into Apple’s iPhones. But this hardly clears up the ethical and legal debate about whether the FBI should have the capability to hack any smartphone for which they can get a warrant. This case exists at the intersection of a criminal investigation and national security. The FBI wants the chance to access the phone of Syed Farook, one of the shooters in the San Bernardino massacre that killed 14 and wounded 22. The FBI has taken every necessary legal step to access the phone’s data, but Apple simply does not have the technology to hack it and has refused to create it thus far. If Apple builds what the FBI is requesting, that creates more than a chance the FBI can access the phone’s data: it is a guarantee. But even if the FBI bypasses Apple and uses third-party technology to access Farook’s phone, Apple will develop stronger security measures on the next version of the iPhone, and this debate will happen again in the future. This case affects every smartphone user in the world. Here is what you need to know about the implications for personal security, national security, and privacy…”