FBI vs. Apple: Civil Liberties

     The government has a dark past on civil liberty. This past is filled with examples of egregiously over-extended surveillance on its own populous in the name of security. As early as the 1920s, the famed Black Nationalist leader Marcus Garvey had his private mail unconstitutionally tampered with by intrusive investigation. This eventually contributed to his being forced out of the country when he was deported to Jamaica in 1927. 
    The American government began to violate civil rights of thousands yet again out of fear of communism with the post-war Red Scare in the ‘50s and ‘60s. When one examines the historical evidence, and couples it with an understanding of civil rights and the role of government, the FBI accessing Apple iMessages becomes one of the greatest civil liberties debates of our time.
    Respectfully, Apple declined the bureau’s requests, on the grounds that they’d sworn to their consumers a right to privacy and as an individual business, its customers’ devices are considered to be private property. The FBI’s grounds for making this move is to prevent terrorism. Legally and historically, the FBI’s request to access Apple communications on the basis of a terrorist watch doesn’t hold up as acceptable.
    As the oft repeated line “history repeats itself” indicates, Americans need to take heed when a current event parallels a disturbing relic of the past. The FBI demanding access to the San Bernardino shooter’s activities and devices without a warrant like any other criminal is no different. Many Americans in the 1950s thought nothing of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s radical desire to weed out communists at first; after all, it was touted as a means of regulating national security. However, that trust in the motive and validity of government surveillance quickly vanished for many people when McCarthyism resulted in rounding up the Hollywood Ten and effectively destroying the freedom of speech and expression for thousands of American citizens.
    The maxim of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a perfect example of the attitude government should have regarding freedom of speech. Perhaps what one says is offensive, or even alludes to illegal activity. But the FBI and others must concede to the fact that words are not only not sufficient enough of a premise to confiscate private property, but believing them to be so defies what our Founders believed about the right to speak offensively and controversially. The purpose of the First Amendment and defense of free speech was not to protect friendly and acceptable speech.
    In addition to its blatant disregard for the First Amendment, the FBI also proceeds to trample over the clearly defined provisions of the Fourth, as well. The Fourth Amendment provides that any agents of the government must have a warrant to seize private property; and thus we come to another underlying concern with the government's sentiment toward surveillance. Not only do they disregard the highest law of the land, the Constitution, these omniscient beings imply that citizens are incapable of reporting crimes on their own merit. Americans are too rebellious, too naive, to have the desire or sense to stop terrorists; they’ll either join up with the plot to destroy America, or simply keep scrolling. But why do Americans have to give up their rights to feel safe?
    Ultimately, if the government believes it to be acceptable to hack into our electronic devices in 2016, what makes it any different from the British seizing Americans’ private papers in 1776? Is this not the issue that made a ragtag group of farmers decide to declare independence from, and go to war with, the most powerful nation in the world? Technology progresses, yes. But rights are rights forever, and history has shown us the same is true for government: it never changes. If the government saw the Red Scare as a solution in the ‘50s and ‘60s, it is naturally going to see illegal seizure of our Apple products as a solution today.
In conclusion, targeting Americans in the name of security is the opposite of the government’s creative intent. A government that is more concerned with spying on its populous in the name of security, rather than protecting its citizens’ rights, is a government that has stepped far beyond its respective jurisdictions.