- Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Christian Doctor Who Heals Rape VictimsKate Shellnutt
- Study: US Churches Exclude Children with Autism, ADD/ADHDDavid Briggs
- Max Lucado Reveals Past Sexual Abuse at Evangelical #MeToo SummitMorgan Lee
- Christianity Today's 2019 Book Awards
- At President Bush’s Funeral, Michael W. Smith Honors His ‘Friend Forever’Kate Shellnutt
What Apple’s Encryption Fight Has to Do with Religious Freedom
Why should religious freedom advocates pay attention the Apple-FBI encryption debate?
Last week, the battle between Apple and the FBI came to a temporary standstill when the FBI announced that an independent third party had offered a solution for unlocking the San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone. But this pause doesn’t end the underlying dispute between the government and Apple, which will continue to make encrypted devices.
As an Apple spokeswoman stated on Monday, “This case raised issues which deserve a national conversation about our civil liberties, and our collective security and privacy. Apple remains committed to participating in that discussion.”
When the tech giant sought to block a federal request to access the San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone, privacy was clearly a major issue at stake. In a court filing last month, Apple attorneys cited the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. By claiming these constitutional protections as a corporation, their defense recalled another company in the headlines for resisting government orders: Hobby Lobby.
More than half of Americans sided against Hobby Lobby before the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that granted them a religious accommodation from a generally applicable law—a requirement that employers cover contraceptives in their health plans. Critics claimed that corporations, unlike actual persons, cannot have constitutional rights; in addition, many were distressed that the decision allowed Hobby Lobby’s owners to operate their closely held company consistent with their personal religious opposition to the morning-after pill. Supporters claimed that it was unreasonable for the government to not offer to closely ...1