The giant technology company, Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were involved in a fight that gathered attention from all over the world. The standoff regards the breaking of an encryption of the terrorist responsible for the San Bernardino attack. The government claimed that unlocking the phone was important in their investigation of the family and the terrorist group he may have been involved in. Apple declined the request to create a backdoor for the encryption since it would be a violation of privacy. However, the government would consistently insist that it would use the backdoor tool only once. However, Apple argued that breaking the phone would have created a dangerous precedent that would have affected the privacy of other millions of users. The FBI decided that the court should decide whether or not Apple should hack the phone. Later on, before the proceedings could start, the FBI withdrew their case, claiming they achieved hacking the phone (Grossman 21).
Apple may have been right in this case. If they accepted creating the backdoor, all kinds of other parties might have walked in. If the United States government could demand access to people's privacies, any other government can do the same. Furthermore, the more that Apple created the backdoors to the iOS, the more vulnerabilities other hackers could have at their disposal to exploit. Currently, black hackers are already causing a problem by stealing personal information from people. The information on the phone is protected by the encryption on the phone. However, if the government was in the possession of the technology to crack the software, they could hack any phone they have.
There are those that believe that the government made the request public to use the attack to ignite a debate about the necessity of invading privacy (Nation 3). Government hacking has been a topic that has recently been under the spotlight since the issue of privacy in technology is an unclear area in the law. The hacking of the iPhone was an example of the effort of the government to invade privacy when there is the necessity. If Apple gave away the tool to the government, it would have opened the door to a new range of government surveillance that is already widespread in today's government.
The Edward Snowden incident was another that started the debate about the extent of government surveillance. Some considered Snowden as a hero while other considered him a traitor to his country. Snowden's actions caused outrage not only at the government but also to the companies that were obligated to protect the privacy of the citizens. During this time, the performance of the companies in the market performed poorly (Nation). Therefore, Apple may have been taking a stand for the sake of saving their business, or perhaps they believed in their customer's privacy. Either way, invasion of Farook’s iPhone poses debatable ethical issues.
The case consists of controversy due to two main issues. Firstly, there is the issue of the incident creating a precedent of a new form of government privacy intrusion. It was one person that broke the law, and one phone that the government wanted access to. if Apple accepted the government’s request, then it would have opened a door where innocent people may have to be involved. Those that have not broken the law could have their phones broken into due to this one incident. On the other hand, there is the issue that this was a dangerous man that took several innocent lives. There is no doubt that he was part of a larger terrorist group and unlocking the phone would have aided the investigation, and take more people like him down. Therefore, which is more important? Is it to respect the privacy of the citizens or is it to investigate the group that has the potential to murder other hundreds of people. It is also important to consider there is the aspect of the law. Whether it was lawful to ask Apple to provide the necessary tools to hack the phone. Perhaps the attempts to hack the phone were also not legal.
Surveillance was once about eavesdropping on people, and observing them. However, with the advance in technology, the scope of surveillance has expanded beyond the use of spyglasses. Today, so many aspects of people's lives are observable, searchable, and traceable. Government surveillance has become more intrusive than it has ever been. In addition to the ethics issues that the surveillance has, government surveillance does not have the same standards that the unreasonable physical searches has (Kadhim). The Constitution protects the citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, when FISA and the related laws were born, the same protection is not extended to the electronic surveillance by the government (Kadhim). Currently, there is a lot of private data that people save electronically. Technology has become part of our lives so much that an electronic search of a phone is just as personal as a physical one.
There is a typical argument that the government always uses to support their surveillance: “if you have not done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear” (Mathieu and McDonough 71). It would be true of the government is only interested in those that break the law. Most people are law-abiding citizens, and will make their lives safer by eliminating those that break the law. Therefore, government surveillance might be useful after all. When the net is cast, everyone is caught in it. However, only the criminals and the bad people get to go.
As compelling as the argument may be, there is another side. Suppose there was a new law, one that states that everyone has to wear a tracking device everywhere they go. Perhaps the device will be impossible to remove, and the government can track everyone. Certainly, most people would feel that this would be a high level of invasion of privacy. No one would feel comfortable with such an invasion. The thought of someone being able to track everywhere one goes is disturbing. Some may also feel that it would be a method that would be prone to abuse. This is a method that would make it easy for the government to track down criminals, however, the privacy invasion on the rest of the citizens is not worth it.
The invasion that the government currently practises should be as equally unacceptable. After the Edward Snowden exposure, it was public that the government has a storage of all the information of people that are even innocent. Such a wide collection of information can create an archive of data that is prone to abuse. For instance in 2007, Benjamin Robinson was indicted by the government for using the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TESC) for tracking his ex-girlfriend and the family (Mathieu and McDonough 71). He used it 163 times before he was caught. If the surveillance continues to increase, so will the amount of collected data, and therefore, the more potential there is for abuse.
In addition, there is the possibility of ‘slipping’ if the government surveillance continues. The widening of the scope of surveillance encourages the government to increase its surveillance projects. The collection of fingerprints has increased over the years. The discussion has shifted towards the collection of DNA information (Mathieu and McDonough 72).
Whenever there is the creation of a database, there is always the potential for a third unintended purpose. The FBI versus Apple case is one similar to government surveillance. It was a violation of privacy, and one that had the potential to create a ‘slip' in the future. it would have perhaps opened a door to other cases where private citizens that are not criminals been affected.
The government surveillance extends beyond the United States. Organizations such as the GCHQ are responsible for using massive surveillance techniques. They are accused of actively tracking computer vulnerabilities to be able to gather data on its citizens. The GCHQ had placed data interceptors in their fibre optic cables that come in and out of the country. The programme was called Tempora. The programme used specific trigger words in emails and targeted people and their phone numbers. The GCHQ in combination with the NSA used about 40,000 triggers. The programme has been running since 2008 and by 2011, the GCHQ had placed over 200 interceptors (Kadhim). Considering the fact that there are so many NSA contractors, it just highlights how vulnerable the information is to abuse. Who knows the capabilities the people who have access to the information and the possible exploitation they would have?
Under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Act (Ripa), the government can wiretap targets if there is a signed warrant. The warrant has to be signed by the Home of Foreign Secretary. Ripa, also allows the Foreign Secretary to issue a certificate for surveillance of people are have terrorist connections. The GCHQ seems to be using the clause to justify the use of the programme. GCHQ argues that they that their actions are within the bounds of the law. They argue that they even follow the Human Rights Act since searches are important and should be proportionate. GCHQ claims that it only targets criminals (Kadhim).
There are ethical codes broken in this case. Firstly, the hackers at GCHQ and NSA do not expose the vulnerabilities that computers have. Hackers abide by the code that they are supposed to expose the vulnerabilities to protect everyone from potential attacks from malicious parties. Besides, this is the government; it is supposed to protect the citizens from such potential exposures. Hackers that expose the vulnerabilities of the system are referred to as "white hat hacker". Hackers that do the opposite are "black hat hackers" (Cole 220). In addition to the intelligence agencies not outside the government's review, they also chose not to abide by the ethical code that white hat hackers abide by.
The issue of the citizen's trust is also important in whether the government should be able to hack people's electronic privacy. According to PR Newswire study, there were just about half of Americans that were comfortable and sure that the FBI can handle their data securely. They believe that it was important the FBI break the attacker’s iPhone if it had information that would help prevent such attacks in the future. however, the majority of the Americans were distrustful of the FBI and that they would not trust them to be able to keep the data safe and prevent malicious hackers from exploiting it. The issue of trust is important since the government has the responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the citizens.
The issue of privacy is one that has been highlighted in the constitution for very many years, and the Constitution protects citizens from unlawful violations of privacy. In 2002, the president signed a presidential order to allow the intelligence agencies to authorize government spying without having to obtain a warrant from a judge (American Civil Liberties Union). They could monitor hundreds of phone calls both domestic and international calls. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court requires that there should be a warrant obtained from the court before any surveillance at such a scale is done. Since the intelligence agency already does the surveillance without any warrant obtained, then it means there is no judicial oversight of the surveillance. It is, therefore, correct to classify the government surveillance as illegal.
President Bush admitted to having authorised the order. However, he argued that he had the authority to do so. The issue of government surveillance is a very serious issue that should be extensively debated. People are currently very dependent on technology, which has become a huge part of people’s lives. Therefore, any information obtained from such surveillance can be used for dangerous intentions such as monitor, control and blackmail innocent citizens.
Work Cited
American Civil Liberties Union. NSA Spying in America is Illegal. 2016. https://www.aclu.org/nsa-spying-americans-illegal. 26 4 2016.
Aron, Jacob. “Every click you make.” New Scientist, 14 11 2015: 228. Print.
Cole, David. “Privacy 2.0: Surveillance in the Digital State.” Nation 4 6 2015: 218-221. Print.
Grossman, Lev. “Apple Vs. the FBI: Here's Who Really Lost.” Time 11 4 2016: 21. Print.
Kadhim, Shubber. A simple guide to GCHQ's internet surveillance programme Tempora. 24 Jun. 2013. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/24/gchq-tempora-101. 26 4 2016.
Mathieu, Deflem and Shannon, McDonough. “The Fear of Counterterrorism: Surveillance and Civil Liberties Since 9/11.” Society (2015): 70-79. Print.
Nation. “Apple vs. the FBI.” Nation 14 2 2016: 3-4. Print.
PR Newswire. “Privacy vs. National Security: Americans Conflicted Over Apple-FBI Standoff, Distrust FBI, According to Vrge Analytics Survey.” PR Newswire 19 2 2016.
