The US is a highly individualistic society. It puts a premium on individual rights and privacy, sometimes even over public interest. Contracts sometimes have the effect of a law as what happened with AIG. The company was allowed to issue bonuses to its officers using government bailout money, in spite of the wrong-doing these officers had committed. The contract took precedence over public interest. Apple’s position may be viewed in a similar light.
After the San Bernardino massacre , the FBI got a court order to force Apple to open a secured iPhone used by one of the terrorist. Apple had continually refused claiming privacy rights, among other things. Because Apple had committed to its customers that it will have a very tight security and un-hackable security on its phones, it cannot breach that commitment, a kind of contract, to its customers. (While this is partly marketing, it is still seems like a valid agreement.) Besides, Apple claims it does not really have the means or any software to open a phone once it leaves the factory.
After 9/11 , it was easy to give up one’s privacy to help in the fight against terrorism. People allowed the government to inspect everything at airports and other public places. The event was so shocking that it scared practically everyone. It has been years since that event and people feel safe again.
However, there were two recent events that people need to think about: the massacre in Paris and the San Bernardino attacks . These events seem remote to most people but they are very serious developments. The ISIS could attack anywhere in the world, even in some of the places considered safe.
People have to trust the government. The courts allowing the opening of the iPhone would set a precedent and be a law in itself . However, it seems too much to think that government will wantonly be opening up anybody’s phone under any circumstances. The circumstances on this occasion seem to be fairly defined. For the most part, government has protected the people and kept them safe. This is just one of the steps to keep things that way.
It is understandable that the FBI would look into the contents of the phone. It was after all owned by the terrorist. It is the correct action to do for everyone’s collective safety. Apple should cooperate. It is not just a matter of curtailing individual’s privacy rights. It is a matter of protecting and securing the entire population of the country. In this case, it seems somewhat selfish. While some rights have been deemed inviolable in this country’s laws, there are times when these have to be given up. It is for everyone’s protection, even for those saying it violates their rights.
References
BBC. (2015, Dec 9). Paris Attacks: What Happened on the Night. BBC. Retrieved Feb 27, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994
Benner, K., Lightblau, E., & Wingfield, N. (2016, Feb 25). Apple goes to Court, and FBI Presses Congress to Settle iPhone Privacy Fight. The New York Times. Retrieved Feb 26, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/technology/apple-unlock-iphone-fbi-san-bernardino-brief.html
History. (2016). 9/11 Attacks. (A&E Televisiion Networks LLC) Retrieved Feb 27, 2016, from History: http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks
Morrison, J. (2009, Mar 17). AIG Bonuses May Not Be Valid Contracts. CNN. Retrieved Feb 27, 2016, from http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-231018
The New York Times. (2015, Dec 18). San Bernardino Massacre: How the Key Figures Converged. The New York Times. Retrieved Feb 27, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/19/us/san-bernardino-massacre-how-the-key-figures-converged.html
Thielman, S. (2016, Feb 20). Apple v the FBI: What's the Beef, How Did We Get Here and What's at Stake? The Guardian. Retrieved Feb 25, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/20/apple-fbi-iphone-explainer-san-bernardino
