On December 2, 2015, the usually peaceful city of San Bernardino in California went through turmoil as 14 of its residents were killed and 22 others seriously injured in what seemed to be an unprovoked terrorist attack. Although the suspect and his foreign-born wife were eventually subdued in a gunfight that ended in their deaths, another battle took place in court as the tech giant Apple and the FBI locked horns over the issue of prying into the contents of the gunman’s iPhone. What the investigation agency wanted was for Apple to write a code that would allow the former to open the gunman’s phone thereby ensuring that the agency would not be locked after the standard 10 unsuccessful tries. Joined by other tech giants, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Microsoft, Tim Cook of Apple resisted the court order, issued under the All Writs Act, ordering the company to assist the FBI by disabling the security feature of the iPhone to allow the latter to view its contents (Weise). The court order, although eventually vacated at the end without Apple complying with it, threatened the integrity of encryption technology that is protecting consumers’ personal data from the dangers of data interception by hackers, identity thieves and other outside intruders.
In today’s world, privacy has never been more important. Although technology has revolutionized the way people live, it has also exposed them to the risks and dangers of intrusions from outside parties who can exploit their personal information and data and turn their lives upside down. The advances in information and communication technology, as well as the advances in data storage and processing, result in the diminished control of personal data and information. Although these advances have made life easier, more convenient and more pleasant to the public, the use of these technologies bring about an attendant danger to their privacy rights. This danger was dramatically highlighted by the Edward Snowden incident which revealed that the government using the same advances in technologies can now keep track of the citizens’ conversations, messages and private transactions over the telephone, the internet and electronic means (van den Hoven et al). The encryption technology – the very technology at stake in the Apple v FBI case - seeks to diminish the dangers that advances in the information and communication technologies are posing to the public.
Apple has built and integrated into the iPhone a sophisticated enncryption technology that protects data of its users from being accessed and intercepted by unauthorized parties. The built-in iOS encryption of the gadget provides enhanced security to personal data because it prevents outsiders from disabling giving users the opportunity to conduct a fast wipe of the encrypted data before hackers can configure the encryption (Sheldon). This is the heart of the Apple technology that makes it attractive to its consumers, which is not surprising considering the kind of dangers the public face from hackers and identity thieves not to mention possible government intrusion as exemplified in the Snowden incident. This was perhaps the very reason why Apple’s CEO Tim Cook had vehemently resisted the court order to write the code that would have provided a backdoor to this security feature. Had it complied with the order, it would have compromised its reputation among its consumers and the public, in effect betraying the trust and confidence reposed on them by the public.
The Apple case finds parallelism in the principle embedded in journalism in which journalists are accorded the right not to disclose their sources so as to protect the latter’s identity. This principle is anchored on another right found in no less than the United States Constitution – freedom of the press. Journalists would like to ensure that they have a free flow of information from all sources to ensure that no important information get past them and these are reported to the public who has the right to know in all circumstances. In the Apple case, the right to free speech is at stake. Unlocking the iPhone for government authorities would make Apple a party to the violation of the constitutional right of the people to free speech because of the possibility that the government would use the contents of the government’s iPhone as evidence against the latter. This would not augur well for the company because any messages contained therein were made in private and Apple would be betraying the confidence and the privacy of the messages. It is not surprising, therefore, that other large technology companies like Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft supported the stance of Apple in resisting the order because these companies knew that privacy, security and free speech are at the heart of their operation and the public’s patronage of them.
The case of Apple v FBI highlighted the tug-of-war between privacy on the one hand, and privacy, on the other. In the fight against terrorism and securing the protection of the public and nation, government agencies are wont to sidestep the privacy and other constitutional rights of the citizens. In this case, the right of Apple and other technology companies to exist and remain trustworthy in the eyes of consumers are likewise put in the balance. Government authorities must understand that there is a thin line that separates privacy and security and they must not compromise either one. Security measures can be imposed without necessarily stamping on the rights of the citizens to enjoy the freedoms afforded to them by the Constitution or of the right of companies to keep their integrity in the eyes of consumers.
Works Cited
van den Hoven, Joeren, Blaauw, Martijn, Pieters, Wolter and Warner, Martijn. “Privacy and Information Technology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2014. Web. 4 May 2016. ˂http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/it-privacy/˃.
Sheldon, Robert. “How iOS encryption and Data Protection Work.” TechTarget. February 2013. Web. 6 May 2016. ˂http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/tip/How-iOS- encryption-and-data-protection-work˃
Weise, Elizabeth. “Apple v FBI Timeline: 43 Days that Rocked Tech.” USA Today. 30 March 2016. Web. 5 May 2016. ˂http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/03/15/apple- v-fbi-timeline/81827400/˃.
