Individual Privacy or Governmental Law Enforcement?

Individual privacy or governmental law enforcement?

• Reflection on the recent Apple v. FBI Case

YUAN, Xinchen 2090740

Apple has recently become a hot topic for her involvement in the case versus FBI. The FBI tries to force Apple to help investigators access an iPhone used by one of the assailants in December’s deadly terror attack in California. The government has sought Apple’s help because encryption technologies on iPhones wipe out data if prosecutors try “brute force” techniques to hack in. Apple insist in a motion (March 2016) that doing so would undermine its encryption technology. According to apple, the request by FBI which fundamentally requires Apple to install a backdoor to its IOS system may open a Pandora ’s Box for future inappropriate surveillance or exploitation of private data and loopholes on the privacy and personal safety. Shall Apple agree to cooperate with FBI? And a step further, shall Apple continue with its encryption technology?

This is never an easy decision for Apple to make. A number of stakeholders are involved in this case. There are customers who cares about if their personal data stay confidential. There are the general public who may care more about the progress of the terrorism case. There is the whole technology industry waiting for the jurisdiction that may affect their future development in encryption. There is the government who is relying on this case to gain stronger control over public safety and solve terrorism issues in this tech-savvy era. Even the whole legal system is involved as this case touches upon the interpretation of All Writs Act and would probably set a binding precedent for future similar cases. The action required is quite simple itself either cooperate or appeal. However, with so many individual factors influencing this process, what composes a right or wrong behavior is kind of blur. Deep inside the case, this is a conflict of interest between law enforcement and the privacy and personal safety of the public, a conflict between state power and individual rights.

There is definitely to certain extent reasonableness of the FBI’s request. They have the All Writs Act behind them that has been used by prosecutors to get court orders requiring those not involved with a crime to provide reasonable assistance to help enforce search warrants. Also, the aim of the government is to solve the terrorism case as soon as possible to mitigate the negative social impact. More profoundly, the government’s concern over the encryption technology has some stance in that it may be quite possible that this technology may evolve in a way that devices or systems become impenetrable and thus empower dangerous folks on illegal behavior.

Despite all mentioned above, the detriment ensued the cooperation with FBI still far outweighs its benefits. Since the invention of smartphones and the network, countless people have been dedicated to breaching online security and stealing personal information stored in various electronic devices. Apple and the whole technology industry is striving to enhance encryption to protect its customers from cyber-attack and constantly improve security with updated versions of software because the threats are becoming more frequent and sophisticated. It thereby makes no sense that such technical development shall be hampered. However, protections that the government is try to roll-back would be an irresponsible crack-down on various company’s dedication towards data safety. Also, stricter governmental control on encryption only drives adversaries further underground, using encryption technology made by foreign companies or other parties which may be even harder to break in. For a socially-responsible and ethical company like Apple, it is the right choice to refuse such a request. Once the back door is open, it would never be possible for Apple to gain absolute control over it. It on the contrary may open a channel that hackers and criminals could take advantage of. In addition, installing this back-door equals to urging apple to develop a product that her customers never need and exert extra burden on her employees. Many people buy iPhone due to its better safety protection compared to Android. And many employees favor Apple due to her well-realized work-life balance. Such a deviation from the company’s value proposition only destroys the company’s reputation and the stock return to its investors. Apart from the technology itself, the conduct to unconditionally comply with governmental request is also inappropriate for a technology company with its established code of business ethics conduct. While FBI stresses that “Just this once” and “Just this phone.” it can never be true in that once a precedent is set other government departments may come up with various reasons to get easy access to personal data. Also, it is hard to conceive of any limits on the orders the government could impose on Apple in the future. For example, Apple may be forced to write code to turn on the microphone and video camera in aid of government surveillance or turn on location services to track the phone’s user even if that user is absolutely innocent. This is definitely not a result we would like to see.