For months, Apple and the FBI have been locked in a legal dispute over the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. In the debate, both sides raised questions about terrorism, security, and our rights as Americans. Ultimately though, they never went to court. Instead, they were saved by an unnamed third party company which unlocked the iPhone for the FBI.

Back in February, the FBI asked Apple to create a new version of the iPhone operating system with weakened security features, which would help them crack the shooter’s iPhone more easily. Apple refused and claimed in an open letter published February 16 that to do so would be to set a “dangerous precedent.”

This sparked a serious debate in which many partook. Companies like Google and Facebook have publicly supported Apple while figures such as Bill Gates have taken the FBI’s side.

The entire premise of Apple’s case is that the new operating system would “fall into the wrong hands,” which seems like a stretch at best. Apple would have us believe that once created, this new, scary operating system would immediately spread throughout the world until everyone’s phones became infected with it, but this is simply not the case.

According to FBI Director James Comey, “We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land.” In other words, the case of the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone is an isolated one.

Many praise Apple for standing up for the people’s right to security. However, even if Apple did create the software for the FBI, the government still couldn’t go around, grab people’s phones, and install the software willy-nilly; they would still need probable cause. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that police need to obtain search warrants to go through phones.

Apple supporters claim that creating this software compromises the safety and security of our phones, yet what better way is there to guarantee safety and security than by preventing future terrorist attacks? People are worried about the government abusing its power, yet the government wouldn’t throw due process out the window. The government’s primary concern is to ensure the safety of its people, and if that means circumventing security features to hack into a dead terrorist’s phone, then so be it.

Imagine that instead of a phone, the FBI believed that the house of a known terrorist contained information about preventing potential future attacks. They would go to a court to obtain a search warrant, head over to the house and break down the door, and they would be perfectly within their rights to do so. Obviously, a burglar would have to knock down people’s doors too, but the burglar would have to actively go to a house to break into it.

The same idea applies for our phones. Even if a hacker somehow hacked into the FBI and obtained the software used in this case, they couldn’t break into a phone over the internet. The way the software is designed, a hacker would need to have the phone in their hands to install the software. A hacker would have to plug the iPhone into their computer and use the computer to attempt to break into the phone.

Apple makes it seem as though the FBI were trying to create a mass scale conspiracy to remotely break into people’s phones. No such capability exists, just as there’s no way to remotely break down people’s front doors. Therefore, Apple’s point of a mass security threat is moot, and unless a would-be hacker managed to collect every iPhone in the country, your data is safe.