Individual Paper
Apple –FBI Battle over San Bernardino Terror Attack Investigation
Executive Summary
This report is about the battle between Apple Company’s iPhone and FBI’s demand from apple to develop a new software, which will help FBI to get the data contained in the phone of a terrorist, Syed Farook, who shot and killed 14 people in San Bernardino and left behind his iPhone. The phone’s iCloud was changed shortly after the attack, and FBI believes that such latest communication might help them get to know the terrorist’s plan. FBI went to court to be given orders that would compel Apple to create an alternative method of bypassing the iPhone’s access code without deleting the data contained in it. However, the company’s Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook refused to exercise the court orders. The decision by Tim Cook against the demand of FBI can withstand the test of time. Although the resolution may be seen as ethically wrong, it was made to protect the privacy of the customers and economic interest of the company. Although Apple is able to develop the software which can help bypass the iPhone’s security system without destroying the information contained, such permission will open a wide door for infringing on the privacy of iPhone users. There is no danger posed to the public, if information contained in Farook’s phone is not accessed by FBI because there are lots of other means of accessing information on terrorists apart from phone communications.
Introduction
Ethics are the principles, which regulate the behaviors of professionals at the workplace. Ethics define the morals of the decisions made (Colby et al., 1983). It is interested in determining was it right and wrong. Apple Company is a very large organization, which has established itself in the market of gadgets such as mobile phones, tablets, computers and iPads. Apple Company and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) have been to court to over the issue that the company had denied FBI access to the information contained in the iPhone 5s used by Syed Farook, a terrorist who shot dead 14 people in San Bernardino. FBI required the company to allow them break the encryption code of the phone to bypass the password used by the terrorists so that they can access his last communications to be used by the FBI. The company’s Chief Executive Officer, Tim Cook refused to grant the request arguing that if the encryption code is broken, the company’s information would be at risk and it would enable easy bypass of the security of the iPhone 5s in future, which would in turn affect the privacy of the iPhone 5s users.
The Apple iPhone 5s has a software, which prevents access to the phone via attempts to bypass the code in place. In this case, the model of Farook’s phone allowed a maximum of ten trials of security evade after which the phone’s contents would be destroyed. FBI could not risk to exceed the allowed attempts because doing so would render their exercise futile, as the information they require would be lost. FBI then requested the Apple Company to develop a new software, which would alter the System Information File. The System Information File software would enable FBI to skirt the passcode encryption. The Chief Executive Officer of Apple Company refused to comply with the court order on the basis that the software will be abused by law enforcement departments to violate privacy rights of Apple iPhone 5s users. This decision of the Chief Executive Officer has been criticized by the government of the United States of America as an act which is unethical and is contrary to public policy because the Apple Company seems to support terrorist activities by refusing to assist the government to access information within the company’s reach. This report will analyze the ethical issues arising from the acts of the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and the effect on public policy, namely ethical backing of Tim Cook’s decision and influencing factors; the influence of the company as an organization; stakeholders’, personal and groupthink influences, and the conflicting values in the battle.
Ethical Backing of Tim Cook’s Decision and Influencing Factors
The company’s Chief Executive Officer, Tim Cook made a decision to reject the FBI’s request, as it was lacking in ethical backing. Tim Cook’s decision as an officer of Apple Company has received much support both from the public, the social media platform stakeholders and its customers, as compared to the few sympathizing supporters of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Apart from these support, the decision was based on various theories and influences of the environment in which Apple operates. Such environment is both internal and external such as the ethical culture of the organization, and the need to protect the interests of the stakeholders. The ethical issues in this battle arise from the decision of Tim Cook as an agent of Apple, and FBI as agents of the government. Tim Cook as an executive, has the authority to make a decision concerning the use and disuse of the products made by Apple including ensuring privacy of users. On the other hand, FBI has the mandate to protect the public from harm caused by terrorists, and they are allowed to undertake all necessary steps to enforce it. The issues arising are that if Apple designs a new software to bypass the code, privacy of individuals will be at stake, and FBI is concerned that such denial will weaken the security system. Tim Cook’s decision is influenced by both the need to protect the consumers and the need to protect their products from misuse by the law enforcement agents. This dilemma rightly fits in what Kohlberg, an American psychologist who is known for his stage theory, classified as “conflict between the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated” (Colby et al., 1983). Lawrence Kohlberg accepted Piaget’s stage theory, but was eager to develop it further. Kohlberg differentiated three levels of moral development, each having two stages (McLeod, 2013).
For the Chief Executive Officer to arrive at the decision that his company could not permit FBI to access the information contained in Farook’s iPhone, there are various factors he must have considered as an individual and as an employee of the company. Those factors, whether social, personal or business-oriented resulted into what has been perceived to be ethically right or wrong depending on the perceiver’s opinions and the side they are supporting (Conill, Lütge and Schönwälder, 2008). Every good and effective business decision is guided by ethics, which must be considered by decision making bodies or individuals. Therefore, in as much as Tim Cook’s act was not received by critics, ethics required that he make that particular decision.
The Influence of the Company as an Organization
Every company as an organization has its own set codes of ethics, which forms the basis of its ethical culture and thus influence its work. Moreover, every company has to ensure the safety of its products, as well as consumerscustmers. Organization’s leaders are to make decisions that support the codes of ethics. Ethical culture helps to avoid unexpected negative impacts on the company. Any business is influenced and thereby required to undertake corporate responsibility through social and legal obligations placed upon them by the law or the society. One of the legal obligations placed on every organization is to ensure safety of products and that of the products’ consumers. In doing so, Apple developed the System Information File interface in its latest model of iPhone to protect the information shared by the phone’s users. In this sense, Apple intended that no one should access another’s information without that person’s express authority. The system also ensured that the privacy of the user is secured. Development of such systems take huge financial and intellectual property input. Therefore, for FBI to wake up and demand that the interface be interfered with so as to access communication of the terrorists, it cannot be a welcomed idea. In fact, in compelling Apple to develop the software, the court relied on a blanket law from 1789, which forced technology companies to produce spyware for the government. This law does not cover the issue or contention between Apple and FBI and by refusing to comply with the court order Tim Cook did not actually break any law. The order is unduly infringing on the rights of the company. Additionally, developing the intended software would interfere with the sequence of production and normal operations of the company, and as such, would take the organization many steps backwards in terms of engaging more time and finances into the exercise.
It is a required that the leaders of an organization must make decisions, which set good examples to other employees and future leaders (Apriliani, Anggraini & Anwar, 2015). The leader must be in a position to establish and demonstrate adherence to the principles and ethics of practice which it expects its juniors will emulate. Tim Cook understood these ethical requirements, and thought before granting the demand to avoid future setbacks that might flow from such similar actions. Noteworthy, he is simply leading by example. He considered the fact that law enforcement department has a tendency of coming back for such information such that if they are given that one chance, the door would be open for many other chances. Tim Cook stated that purging the court order would set a bad precedent in the industry.
Stakeholders’ Influence
For stakeholders, organizational culture is an important concern. They put much effort into the effective work of the company. The FBI’s request creates two issues for the company and its consumers. The stakeholders in the company that can influence a moral agent’s decision, whether, shareholders, the programmers and software engineers, producers and or employees, look at the company or the organization as a living organism, with its own mind and will, so that organizational culture becomes an important concern (Apriliani, Anggraini & Anwar, 2015). All the stakeholders are interested in the profits made in the company and are affected by any loss of profits through the arbitrary infringement of rights. The stakeholders put a lot of work, time, finances and dedication into the development of the products such that they stand to lose a lot of economic interest, if anything happens to the products or customers lose trust in their subsequent iPhones, which would be less secure. Therefore, if the company develops the software required by the FBI, these problems are bound to emerge and the company might make losses.
Moreover, like every other organization, Apple Company is a legal person with policies, powers, rights, obligations and duties towards itself, the consumers and the society at large. The request by FBI to develop the software would mean creating a new Operating System altogether. It implies that the new iPhone would have a less secure security system. The software will break the encryption code and create loopholes in the security system, which might lead to leakage or loss of data from the phone.
Two issues are involved here as a result of the FBI’s request? [not clear]; one, as already stated, the customers will not like the new inferior phones and two, the market would be interfered with as a result of the former. This will affect the profitability of the company. The court order thus seeks to deprive the company of its legal rights of fair dealing and profit making. Therefore, Tim Cook’s decision had taken into consideration the expectations of the stakeholders as a matter of ethics. It is also important to note that the intended weakening of the security access procedure might allow Apple’s competitors to take the opportunity to be ahead of Apple in the market.
Furthermore, the rights, privileges and powers accorded to the organization are limited only by law. In this case, there is no legal requirement on the Apple Company or similar companies to develop the new software just because it has been demanded by the FBI. The organization is expected to make its own decisions without pressure or control of any other person or authority. Therefore, as the legal representative of the company, the Chief Executive Officer made that decision prioritizing the company’s interest. The critics of Tim Cook’s decision might not be aware of this undeniably essential ethical constraints, but that was the best step to take to safeguard the stakeholders’ interest.
Personal Influence
According to ethical principles, individuals are to make loyal decisions. Ethics also require an individual to avoid making decisions based on negative personal factorsinfluences, but where possible, a decision maker should apply his good personal attributes to make healthy and long-lasting organizational decisions (Apriliani, Anggraini & Anwar, 2015). Such personal attributes include loyalty. This ethical principle require decision makers to do the right thing even in the midst of misfortune or adversity (Conill, Lütge and Schönwälder, 2008). It show good quality of leadership and ability to be in control even when it appears that all hope is gone. Nothing at all prevented Tim Cook from siding with FBI and help them with accessing Farook’s phone information because to be practical, the company was able to do so. I think FBI might have even offered huge sums of money for the exercise. However, for the sake of loyalty to present and future customers, Tim Cook’s personal values decided that it is better to be loyal to the company’s customers, whether alive or dead.
Groupthink Influence
Groupthink is group’s faulty decisions caused by group pressure. . ThisGroupthink influence is the impact of the decision on other players or interested groups in the decision made (Apriliani, Anggraini & Anwar, 2015). Irving Jains, social psychologist who coined the term, distinguishes eight symptoms of groupthink. They are illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalization, believe in inherent morality, stereotyped views of out-groups, direct pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity and self-appointed ‘mindguards’ ("What is Groupthink", n.d.). Apple Company is a technological organization in the Silicon Valley where most of the World’s technological ideas are natured and developed. Most of its products such as laptops, iPads and iPhones are gadgets used for communication, especially via social platforms, which include Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter amongst others. These social platforms also access and store users’ information in their database. The same way FBI wanted to access Farook’s phone, many Individuals have been traced by FBI through their social media accounts and prosecuted based on those social media data.
If Apple allowed the FBI to break lose the boundary of privacy, even these social media platforms would have been put at risk of being forced to infringe on their client’s privacy rights. Tim Cook must have also considered these interests of other players in the business. Business ethics require that decision makers show concern for other players in the market. In this sense, Tim Cook also projected into the future possibilities of injury to others, if he made a wrong decision. Arriving at the decision, Tim Cook also considered the possibility of future infringement of the liberty and freedom of other players in the business such WhatsApp and Twitter.
The Conflicting Values in the Battle
In the battle, both FBI and Apple Company tried to protect their own values. However, it is necessary for FBI to respect Apple’s reasons for denial the request. FBI’s demands are based on public policy and the need to protect the public from attacks. FBI is claiming that Apple’s conduct amounts to aiding the terrorists and obstructing legal enforcement. In as much as FBI wants to ensure security of the public, it must not act in such a way, which would cause harm to the business of another. Apple also want to protect its business and privacy of its customers amongst other stakeholders’ interest. Therefore, the mêlée is caught between two important values of almost equal importance. However, it is not difficult to square out the conflict for various issues.
First, FBI has had its methods of hacking phones including the previous versions of iPhones and Apple has always been ready to help. FBI needs to understand and respect Apple’s reasons that the new iPhone 5c is one of a kind whose security passcode is not easy to bypass unless the Operating System is created again from scratch. Such process entails a complete design. Therefore, Apple is not and has never refused to help FBI with law enforcement. Apple action is not intended to ignore court orders. It is just protecting its rightful economic and ethical interests in the business. Moreover, FBI has always purchased and found ways of hacking phones, and it cannot exclusively focus on Apple and force it to undertake unwise business decisions.
Another aspect of looking at the conflict to set Apple free is the fact that Farook had died, and is not going to attack the public again. The information in his iPhone might or might not help FBI to access whatever it is looking for. Such focus on a single source of terrorist’s information shows how much FBI might be focusing in the wrong place. Terrorists are very clever, and it is very unlikely that Farook might have left any incriminating information on his phone. It simply means that FBI should leave Apple to carry on with business peacefully because there are various alternative traceable sources of information on Farook’s activities other than this particular Phone. Therefore, in as much as the FBI’s fears of security of the public is very vital, the issue now seems far-fetched considering that the terror had happened and the victims passed away. Apples’ interests are however real and present. It is feasible to state that FBI’s contention can be solved in many other alternative ways, but the Company’s business is at stake. Furthermore, the attack had happened and is part of history. Being on Apple’s neck will not help ease the situation, but thinking and implementing other alternatives to the problem might be helpful.
Conclusion
Apple’s position is the best in the circumstances considering the ethical issues involved in this battle. However, Tim Cook’s stand can be varied, if the matter is well-thought-out and implemented in a manner that does not affect the company, its customers or the public security. Such alternative may be done by Apple in coming up with a software, which will not weaken the security system of iPhone 5c, but allow the manual bypass of the security system with ease. Alternatively, Apple can increase the number of permissible manual attempts from ten to a higher number, say one thousand or more or do away with the limits altogether.
The solutions recommended are practical and very cheap as compared to developing a new operating system. This can be done at a relatively fast speed because Apple Corporation understands its product, the features and the way the iCloud password is created. It is in a position to reverse the security encryptions, insert the software, which denies access through manual bypass and return the system of the phone as it was.
Moreover, any defects resulting in the process can be corrected by Apple Corporation because it has the technology, the expertise and the manpower to do so. Furthermore, if such makeover would make the iPhone unsecure making a new Operating System would engage the company to come up with even more secure iPhone. On the issue of additional expenses that might be incurred, FBI must be willing to undertake to fund the whole exercise of either making a new system, the consequences of defects in the phone interfered with, making secure the intended new form of iPhone and insure the company against contingent loss of business. This is in addition to granting the company additional financial incentives such as adding capital to the company.
References
Apriliani, D., Anggraini, R. Z., & Anwar, C. (2015). The Effect of Organization Ethical Culture and Ethical Climate on Ethical Decision Making of Auditor with Self Efficacy as Moderating. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 4(1), 226.
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., Lieberman, M., Fischer, K., & Saltzstein, H. D. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 1-124.
Conill, S. J., Lütge, C., & Schönwälder-Kuntze, T. (2008). Corporate citizenship, contractarianism and ethical theory: On philosophical foundations of business ethics. Farnham, England: Ashgate Pub. Co.
McLeod, S. (2013). Kohlberg - Moral Development | Simply Psychology. Simplypsychology.org. Retrieved 11 June 2016, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
What is Groupthink. Psysr.org. Retrieved 10 June 2016, from http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm
