Last
December, a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California left 14 people dead.
The FBI approached Apple for assistance in accessing the shooter's recovered
cell phone. Their intent was to learn more about the shooter's whereabouts in
the 18 minutes following the attack. Additionally, they wanted to know whom the
shooter was in contact with prior to the massacre. Apple did offer assistance,
including four possible ways to obtain the information. However, they refused
to rewrite software to essentially create a new operating system that would allow
the government access to the encrypted phone. According to Apple, this wasn't a
case about one phone, but rather about privacy.
Apple
resisted the government's request on the grounds that it violates the right to
due process. Past legal rulings have determined that code writing is a type of
free speech. After they were issued the court order, Apple communicated with
its employees and customers before officially responding. CEO Tim Cook, issued
a statement further outlining
his company's stance. In Apple's view, complying with the FBI's request would
have set a dangerous precedent. According to one
article, "Cook's argument was that if the FBI could access this
iPhone, nothing would stop them from doing it to many others." After much
back-and-forth, the case was ultimately dismissed, and the FBI did gain access
to the shooter's phone without
Apple's help.
 |
| The events in the showdown between the FBI and Apple unfolded over 43 days. Image by Parton. |
A more
in-depth timeline can be viewed at USA
Today.
According
to the New
York Times, Alex Abdo of the American Civil Liberty Union said, "Apple
deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of
its customers." Additionally, numerous tech companies came out in support
of Apple including Google, Amazon, and Facebook among others. These industry
leaders expressed concerns that complying in this case could create permanent
access for the government.
As
events unfolded, the public seemed unsure if they should side with Apple or the
FBI according to contradictory surveys from both Pew
and Reuters. Ethically, there are many points to ponder in making such a
decision. The ethical underpinnings of this case demonstrate aspects of egoism,
utilitarianism, and Kantism.
The FBI
accused Apple of looking out for their business interests instead of the
greater good. If this was true, then the tech giant's actions could be
considered an instance of egoism. On some level, Apple did likely have their own
self-interest in mind in addition to the privacy concerns they touted. When
Apple initially assisted the government without writing the new OS, they were
showing ethical egoism as they helped others without hurting themselves.
According
to Barbara MacKinnon's view on utilitarianism in "Ethics: Theory and
Contemporary Issues" "even torture can be acceptable if it results in
good such as valued information." With this in mind, perhaps some are able
to justify the FBI's motives in wanting access. While it is a violation of
privacy, fewer people would take issue if the method was applied only to the
shooter's phone as a means of preventing potential terrorism. However, if
one phone could be accessed by the government, what would stop them from
accessing more? And if Apple agreed to help the US, what if they were asked by China
(where Apple has a large customer base) for similar assistance? How could they
say "yes" to one, and "no" to another without expecting
their business - and image - to suffer? From a utilitarian view, Apple
imagined making an exception for the US government would probably do more harm
than good.
From a
Kantian point of view, people - or in this case their personal information -
should not be abused. People have the highest intrinsic value. Apple likely
acted with moral worth and with what they thought was the right intention - to
protect privacy. Were they to bypass the encryption, their
morals - and potentially their business - could have been compromised. Apple
felt they had a moral obligation to protect their customers. Kant would have likely
believed that the intrusion of the government in this matter was wrong.
 |
| Photograph by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images |
Apple
has claimed that their response was not a business decision. Realistically, everything
a business does is a business decision. Regardless of intent or motive, when a
business like Apple takes a stand, people notice. And, to their credit, Apple
has demonstrated a social conscience in other issues despite their billions of
dollars in profit. Apple held a press
conference on March 21 spending much time talking about
privacy, the environment, and medical research (ResearchKit and CareKit). Some
suggest it is possible that Apple was engaging in a marketing strategy with
these initiatives. Even if it was mainly marketing, all parties involved seem to
have benefited. Likewise, this incident doesn't appear to have had a negative effect
on the Apple brand. They are still highly profitable and visible in the public
eye.
While
no specific legal precedent was set before the case was dismissed, there were useful results from this confrontation. The most important public relations outcome
is that people are talking about the topic of tech privacy now. The broader issue
remains unresolved, but at least more people are aware and hopefully capable of
making their own informed decision. There is a larger debate to be had between
tech providers and legal authorities over privacy and access to data. While
this specific encryption case is over, another showdown is inevitable.
 |
| Getty Images |
Suggested readings:
I love your Blog, awesome! Also, I briefly followed the topic when I saw it on the news a few months back - that Apple, a major international corporation was going "toe to toe" with the Department of Justice and won, rightfully so in my opinion. Privacy is a concern for all of us, and we as a public sometimes have a hard time standing up to the justice system. Additionally, The Department of Justice could easily "ping" the phone, locating whereabouts of any individual they want to. Now, I personally love DOJ for many reasons, however, I suspect they wanted more information than just a location, and they additionally wanted Apple's cooperation- because you could best be sure that they would use them as a reference at least, or in a subpoena for the criminal trial. Excellent Post, very descriptive and great use of props, etc... my favorite thus far! Deme
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, Deme. It will be interesting to see what happens the next time the government approaches Apple, or any other tech giant, for similar assistance.
ReplyDelete