Analysis of the Case Between FBI and Apple
Description of the public policy
IN contemporary society Apple plays the role of the major giant of the production of the mobile phones in the United States and in the world. Regardless the fact that Apple is a sustainable company, its status and performance were challenged by the dispute with FBI regarding the confidentiality. This problem was initiated in 2015 when FBI submitted the request to Apple with purpose to provide the secured information about the users of iPhones. The management of the company has dismissed this proposal based on the fact that Apple stands for the protection of the interests of the clients. The request of the FBI is grounded on the fact that the population of the United States is the subject of the terrorist attacks. In fact, the representatives of the FBI succeeded in the acquisition of the mobile phone belonging earlier to one of the offenders of the legal order. FBI has recognized that the organization is not able to overcome the encryption of the user data established by Apple. The company refused to inform FBI about the information that may allow to read the encryption code. In contrast, there are numerous concerns among the people that Apple should satisfy the request of the FBI as this problem addresses public safety. This paper contains the overview of the policy of Apple regarding the maintenance of the confidentiality about the personal information. Furthermore, the author suggests to define the pillars of the activity of FBI in pursuit of the disclosure of the information about the encryption code.
In 2015 the FBI turned to Apple with purpose to gain assistance in the understanding the encryption code of iPhone 5C. This mobile phone was captured by the law enforcement agency from the offender committed the attack - Ibadan Francisco. Apple has decided to dismiss the proposal of FDI on the cooperation about the disclosure. The iPhone that was captured by FBI belonged Syed Rizwan Farook that killed more than 20 people in San Bernandino. Duet to the refusal in cooperation, the FBI informed Apple that new operation system should be developed in order to provide the representatives of FBI with the opportunity to read the information contained in the iPhone. In particular, the company was requested to present updated IOS operating system which enables the access of the state bodies to the devices of the ordinary users. This innovation should ensure that the FBI and other agencies will have the power to trace the offender and prosecute him. However, Apple stated that this update is not possible. The CEO of Apple informed that the company may not act in the violation of the internal rules. Under this statement one should understand that the internal policy of the company may not change the security features of the particular product as it may influence the integrity of the item, etc. Consequently, the FBI submitted the claim to the local judicial authority for the consideration of the dispute between the parties. The judgment was delivered in favor of the position of FBI due to which Apple was responsible for the development of special software under the provisions of the All Writs Act of 1789. The decision of the court is seemed ambiguous in the nature. Some experts believe that the adoption of this decision is in violation of the pivotal constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. It is stated that the privacy and confidentiality of the personal information can not be compared with the issue of the national security. Accordingly, Apple states that the judicial order can not be fulfilled. The response of Apple was grounded on the fact that the company respects the attitude of the customers, its loyalty so that it is better for company to maintain the trustful relations with the relevant audience instead of the government. Besides, this case is quite interesting due to the fact that tt has the form of the precedent, as within the previous years the FBI or the government did not request the private company of such a level to disclose private information belonged to users. Although, the advancement of the technological development can not be ignored. Such companies as Apple are developing faster and faster from day to day, so that it appears quite difficult to keep the personal information confidential.
In 2016, the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook informed all customers that the company is not going to perform the order filed by the US government. During his speech, Tim Cook pointed out that he prefers to support the trust and confidence in the relations with the clients. Moreover, the update of the existing operating system will show to the world that the company gives up in the protection of confidential information. At the same time, the CEO highlighted the fact that the US government does not respect the desire of the individuals to keep the security of the personal information. The request of the FBI is regarded as the threat to the entire security of the information. The state bodies can not rely on the force and other similar measures imposed on Apple for the achievement of the personal internal goals. However, specialists of Apple informed the representatives of the FBI about the existence of different methods that may allow them to overcome the security of the mobile phone. From one point of view, Apple is seemed to leave the desire of the company to stay friendly one for the protection of the interests of the users. In contrast, the company has disclosed sensitive information with the representatives of the law enforcement agencies in the unofficial manner. In this respect, the population is concerned with the ability to trust in the promotion of the values pursued by the company as it violated personal policies to some extent ("Apple v FBI: US debates a world without privacy - BBC News", 2016).
Drivers of the policy
This case between Apple and US government is remarkable one due to the fact that the world is not aware about the similar situations. In fact, the government can not give up its policy to obtain from Apple the updated installation system. Moreover, the state authorities blame Apple for the protection of the interests of the criminals. In order to respond to this suggestion, the management of the company states that interference in the private information of the individual contained in mobile phones produced by Apple will be in violation of most fundamental human rights and freedoms. Accordingly, Apple stresses that the democratic values should be respected by the government in order to keep the freedom of the users. Consequently, Apple dwells on the fact that the request of the US government can not fall within the scope of the exclusion under the internal policies of the company. In fact, the refusal to provide the US government with the opportunity to pierce the encryption code will not threaten the public order, welfare of society, etc. Besides, the satisfaction of this demand may result in the heated debate between the people as approximately every person will have the understanding about instruments for the interpretation of security code imposed by Apple ("Customer Letter - Apple", 2016).
Perspective effects of the disclosure policy of Apple and its impact
The managers of Apple have defined that the presentation of the access to the encryption code may influence the competition in the market. In fact, the disclosure of the information about the protection of the data refers to the intellectual property rights. The secrecy of this information provides the company with the opportunity to take the leading position in the industry. In case this data will be presented to FBI, the other rivals will also have this information. The receipt of this information will allow to the rivals in the industry, where Apple operates, to incorporate the relevant improvements in the personal installation systems. Accordingly, Apple states that it can not perform the court order as the same requirements should be applicable to all manufacturers of the mobile phones. It has been compelled by the company that the users should allow for Apple to develop new iPhone with the characteristics requested by FBI. Due to the fact that performance of Apple is completely linked to the attitude of the customers, the company can not decrease the level of the confidence between Apple and its customers regarding the protection of the personal information. Apple has challenged that any mobile phone may be used by criminal offenders, terrorists, so that it is not necessary to request the encryption code from Apple exclusively. Moreover, the absence of the access to the particular mobile phone can not influence the maintenance of the legal order ("Apple vs. the FBI: What It Means for Privacy and Security - Knowledge Wharton", 2016).
Furthermore, Apple states that the current security system is approximately similar among all manufacturers, so that the consensus between FBI and all producers of the mobile phones should be achieved. In contrast, Obama supported the reasoning of the lawyers of Apple that the government should be able to find the legal instruments for the collection of information from the mobile phones and other innovative electronic devices. With that, the fulfillment of the request of FBI will do the harm to the particular civil liberties, society and the safty of the national security to some extent. Given the fact, that the access to the personal information and the freedom for the confidentiality refers to the fundamental rights and freedoms, it is seemed reasonable that people should decide and opt out in this case.
Recommendations for improvement confidenttiality of Apple
However, it is not clear in what manner the decision and voting process should be conducted as the entire amount of the users of iPhones can not be measured due to the migration of the people from one territory to another. Besides, it is possible to decide this issue on the international level. For example, the members of the United Nations may put this issue in the agenda of the next meeting of the organization where the members as the representatives of every country may present the position of personal population regarding this problem. In case the majority decides that the improvement and update to the operational system should be done, the rest of the countries and members shall agree with this position. Upon this voting process, the member may agree for the stipulation of the necessity about the access to the mobile phones in the international legislative acts in form of the provision of the international convention. Moreover, the development of the contemporary society forces that it is high time for the states to expand the legal framework of the rights and freedoms, as there are new spheres of the activity where the people should be ensured to have the relevant rights ("Apple's FBI Clash Risks Piercing Trust in EU Privacy Shield", 2016).
Cooperation with FBI as state agency
Simultaneously, Apple states that the government acts in wrong manner by interpreting the provisions of the All Writs Act of 1789. Under this legal act, the government of the United States can not request the companies to provide such sensitive information. In fact, Apple states that it is not able to complete the request of the US Government. This line of the behavior should be understood that the company will act accordingly to any government of any other country, while this action should not be interpreted that Apple has the intention to discriminate the US government by refusal to provide the access to the iPhones. Moreover, Apple has never attempted to use the date stored on iPhone, any device produced by the company, iCloud storage, etc. The usage of this information for the benefits of the government is considered to have detrimental effect on the safety of the life of the individuals in society. Meanwhile, the maintenance of the privacy of the data is referred to the marketing strategy of the company so that Apple can not leave. In case the changes will be developed by the company, it is quite easy to predict that Apple will loose the certain amount of the market share in the industry. Accordingly, the cooperation with the government in this dimension will influence the price for the shares of Apple in the stock market (Hodson, 2016, 24). Therefore, it is seemed clear that the US government should find most appropriate solutions to resolve the problem with the access to the private information contained in iPhone. If the US government will leave behind the attempts to obtain this new installment system from Apple, the other producers in the market jointly with the users may feel themselves secure. Moreover, the experts believe that access to the confidential information will not influence in the positive manner the activity of the state bodies as to the decrease of the criminal activity and prevention of different attacks at the population. In contrast, it is believed that people will trespass with the usage of the access to the information with the purpose to obtain the financial resources and then request for ransom, etc. Thus, it is possible to resume that access to such mobile devices will result in the damaging the security and safety of the life of the individuals, as it is quite hard to measure the complete list of the consequences and actions of the offenders in this dimension. Besides, some politicians in the current election campaign in the United States as Warren Buffet believe that the issues of the national security should have the supranational power over the interests of the business units. From this perspective, Apple is obliged to complete the court order otherwise the Federal Trade Commission should impose the relevant fine for the company for the non-performance of the judgment (Barrett, 2016).
Conclusion
The overview of the case with the removal of the privacy in the mobile phones and other technological devices produced by Apple shows that it is hard to imagine when this dispute will be resolved. The current development of the case confirms that the parties may not come to the consensus due to the fact that different interests are involved. Moreover, Apple is not ready to pierce the internal policy and betray the users of the company. Simultaneously, the US government believes that Apple does not take care of the issues of the national security. Therefore, the only possible solution for the resolution of this problem is seen to conduct the voting process among the population about the removal of the high level of the privacy in the mobile phones. Due to the fact that request of the US government addresses the security and welfare of the population, it is reasonable to consult with the people. Accordingly, the participation of the third and independent party to this issue may be beneficial. For example, the US government and Apple may request the International Court of Justice to interpret the policy of the US government and the nature of the request. The Court may interpret as to whether this request violates the privacy of the individuals or not. Moreover, this judicial institution may come to the conclusion about the role of the access to the information to the protection of the national security of the country and world in general.
References
Apple's FBI Clash Risks Piercing Trust in EU Privacy Shield. (2016). Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 4 April 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-08/apple-s-clash-with-fbi-risks-piercing-trust-in-eu-privacy-shield
Apple vs. the FBI: What It Means for Privacy and Security - Knowledge@Wharton. (2016). Knowledge Wharton. Retrieved 4 April 2016, from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/apple-vs-the-fbi-what-it-means-for-privacy-and-security/
Apple v FBI: US debates a world without privacy - BBC News. (2016). BBC News. Retrieved 4 April 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35704103
Barrett, D. (2016). End of Apple-FBI Dispute Could Intensify Larger Fight Over Data Privacy. WSJ. Retrieved 4 April 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/end-of-apple-fbi-dispute-could-intensify-larger-fight-over-data-privacy-1459288457
Customer Letter - Apple. (2016). Apple. Retrieved 4 April 2016, from http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
Hodson, H. (2016). Apple vs FBI: First salvo in the information war. New Scientist, 229(3062), 24-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0262-4079(16)60028-3
