I’m a bit torn on this issue regarding Apple and the San Bernardino iPhone. I see two main topics of debate in this discussion: the issue of privacy and government watch, and then the issue of a free market and government intervention in the marketplace. Apple has a huge impact in our daily lives and this issue has been brought into millions of people’s homes through the letter by Tim Cook. This issue is being brought to the forefront of the political battle with the presidential debate in full swing.
This first issue of privacy and the idea of creating a key to unlock every iPhone out there is an issue that gets many people very heated, very quickly. Tim Cook believes that the FBI is asking them to do something very dangerous, and I agree. Unlocking this specific phone is no different to unlocking any other phone out there. While the government does not intend to use this power again, that simply can not be trusted for the future. There will always be another case that’s worse than this one, or warrants the same need to unlock a phone, and we can’t guarantee the government won’t want to use it again. As Julian Sanchez mentioned in the Guardian article, this country’s government operates on precedent, and if the FBI is trying to use an Act from 1789 in this case, then what will stop them from using this case in a year or two? This case will become an example of allowing the power to unleash people’s privacy, and that is a very slippery slope. One thing I don’t quite understand though is the public’s fear of the government using this power to spy on citizens. A lot of presidential debates have brought up this topic, and I really don’t understand some of these arguments. If the government knocked on my door tomorrow and demanded to search my room, I would let them because I have nothing to hide. The government won’t find anything suspect, so why not let them see it all? Who cares if they have access to millions of people’s information? They need data so that they can pick the few bad seeds out of the pile. I wouldn’t mind if there was some small level of privacy between my data and my identity, but it’s not the biggest deal in the world. I just don’t see the injustice if there’s nothing to hide.
This second issue of government invasion in the marketplace and whether the government can force Apple to alter its product. The key difference from this situation and any other government law that affects companies is that this scenario is forcing a company to create/change a product for a single specific instance. The government is trying to learn more about this case and gain information so it is trying to force Apple to do this for them. The Atlantic article gives the metaphor of a safe with a backdoor and I think that fits extremely well in explaining this story. If a company sells security and is forced to put in a loophole, then their product is compromised. If the government wants the ability to unlock iPhones then it should create the technology itself. I don’t like this invasion of government in the free marketplace because it allows the government to come in and alter a company with ease. This case could be the first time the government dips its toes into the water and I’m not sure I want to see the effects when they come running back to do a cannon ball.
Ethics Blog 