Privacy has always been an issue in the world of technology because, even though it is a human right on a par with freedom of speech, it is still hard to obtain. While commercials tirelessly collect people’s data to make their advertisements more appealing to the customer, there are plenty of cybercriminals who would also like to access average citizens’ data to plan harm and sometimes terror. In the Apple-FBI situation, there are so-called “two evils,” and a need to choose which one is smaller. The privacy and safety of the people are as valuable as national security, so protecting civilians’ solitude is a key approach to ensuring welfare.
The case of San Bernardino is tragic, and the criminals should be found and punished, which would be easier with the data from the phone, retrieved from one of the suspects. The FBI took the position that demanding the software to unlock the Apple phones was necessary not only to resolve this issue but also to prevent future incidents (Breslow, 2016). This would not be a problem; however, the demand was for a general exploit, which would allow access to any iPhone, not only the one in the case. The precedent of possibility, in which every Apple device user’s data could be compromised, sparked considerable debate.
The safety question should be viewed from every perspective, as there is no single answer that can determine who is in the right. On the one hand, there is a concern for the safety of the people of the US, which is understandable and should be guaranteed by access to possible terrorists data. On the other hand, the existence of a “backdoor” in any Apple device means no one can be assured of the safety and privacy of their information.
Solitude is stated to be a right of autonomy of citizens in relation to the state and other parts of civilization (Miller & Bossomaier, 2021). In a world with such an exploit, any valuable bit of data could and would be disclosed, damaging private lives, companies, and even governments. The main risk factor is the possibility that a leak of this kind of software would assist cybercriminals, who would hack government intelligence and sell it to other countries. This case could disrupt world peace, creating openings for conflicts and discrepancies at multiple levels of international relations.
Apple’s position is clear – to protect its customers’ devices from hacking and to preserve their private information in the event of a device loss. Removing this safety measure would mean that any stolen iPhone would be broken into, and its data would be shared with the world. It may seem insignificant on the scale of the state, but one should not rule out the possibility of phone loss for politicians, the government, or high-tier entrepreneurs (Nakashima & Albergotti, 2021). The leakage of personal documents from these types of people can damage them and the country or company they represent in many ways, negatively influencing customers and Apple alike.
In conclusion, Apple’s position in this “fight” seems safer for the US and the world, as it would not create the possibility of further increases in data leaks. While the existence of the tool, which allows one to get into terrorism suspects’ devices, would be beneficial for general safety, in the long run, it would create more negative outcomes for citizens’ privacy. Despite the “imaginary” solitude in question, the endeavor to preserve it should be the preferred approach.
References
Breslow, J. M. (2016). Who’s right in Apple’s fight with the FBI? FRONTLINE.
Miller, S., & Bossomaier, T. (2021). Privacy, encryption and counter-terrorism. In Henschke, A., Reed, A., Robbins, S., Miller, S. (eds). Counter-terrorism, ethics and technology. Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications. Springer, Cham.
Nakashima, E., & Albergotti, R. (2021). The FBI wanted to unlock the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. It turned to a little-known Australian firm. The Washington Post.