A company should facilitate access to its customer’s encrypted data only when that person poses a security risk to the other people or to the nation. However, the company must first be cleared by the law to do so. The company has to be authorized by a court of law for it to breach its term of confidentiality to the customer. Apple had refused to unlock an iPhone of one of its customers who was involved in a terrorist attack. The company was resisting unlocking the phone because it claimed that the only way to unlock the iPhone would require the writing of new software to decrypt it and this software would be able to unlock all the iPhones. The company claimed that the security of its other users would be shaken if the software would get into the wrong hands (Mearian, 2016).
There is an ethical implication of this issue. It is unethical for Apple to facilitate access to its customer’s encrypted data because it is supposed to keep the information of the customer confidence. However, the issue of terrorism could lead to multiple deaths and destruction of property. It is also unethical for Apple to withhold information that might be used in preventing the occurrence of other terrorist activities. Apple was facing an ethical dilemma. The company went to court against the FBI to try and protect its large customer base.
A good scenario that would explain an ethical implication is where Apple creates software to unlock the iPhone of the terrorist. The software accidentally lands into the hands of cyber criminals. These cyber criminals go ahead to use the software to unlock other iPhones and use the customers data to steal from them. It would be unethical for Apple to put the information of its customers under the risk of exposure.
References
Mearian, L., (2016, Mar 2). The Irony in the FBI’s Request to Unlock the iPhone. Computer World. Retrieved from: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3040355/data-privacy/the-irony-in-the-fbis-request-to-unlock-the-iphone.html
