The Ethical Dilemma in the FBI and Apple Case

Executive Summary

All over the world, mobile technology has captured people so much that they are almost always occupied with their phones. These devices contain personal information of individuals including people they talk to, their browsing history, places they have been to and other important information. The inherent risk is that third parties may gain unauthorized access to this data and use it adversely to the detriment of the owner of such data. Companies like Apple saw an opportunity in such risks and developed a strong encryption to completely guarantee user privacy and security by only allowing users to have access via a pass code. However, Apple’s commitment was put to test in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Apple declined to grant the FBI access to one of the terrorist’s phones stating that it would amount to breach confidentiality and would open floodgates to hackers. This has raised an ethical dilemma as to whether the right to privacy is greater than the law enforcement duty to provide security to all citizens.

Introduction

Technological advancements have made life easier and brought along with it a plethora of challenges. Today, the world is one small village courtesy of mobile and internet technology. All over the world, people share information with one another over devices and through the internet. The exchange of information has been made possible by tech companies that host various platforms for the same (Dunlap Jr, 2016). User privacy and data interception became a hot topic after a series of articles by the Guardian newspaper in 2013. Instances of ethical dilemma have been commonplace since the damning revelations of 2013.

Historical context

On the sixth day of July 2013, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian published an article illuminating the National Security Agency (NSA) were collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon customers (Nielsen, 2018). The following day, Glenn published another story revealing that the NSA had a program known as PRISM which allowed the agency to directly access systems of Yahoo, Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, AOL, and Skype among others (Andregg, 2016)..

Shortly afterward, it became public knowledge that a former NSA contractor called Edward Snowden was the source of the revelations. Tech companies like Google and Apple decided to implement a strong default encryption partly in response to the privacy concerns raised by Snowden’s revelations. Before the San Bernardino terrorist shooting, a US judge had ruled that Apple was not obliged to unlock iPhone in a drug case in Brooklyn (Dunlap Jr, 2016). The Judge denied the government request for access to a phone recovered during a drug investigation. According to the Judge, the All Writs Act of 1789 could not be used to coerce Apple into opening the phone and Apple was exempted from the 1994 law on wiretaps.

In the San Bernardino Shooting Apple refused to comply with a court order compelling tem to hack into an iPhone belonging to one of the terrorists. Apple argued that if they went along with the FBI probe requests, then they would be undermining the overall security of its devices (Stephan, 2017). Further, Apple stated that complying with such an order would go against their duty to their customers since they had held themselves in previous occasions as a company that protects user’s privacy (Mansfield-Divine, 2016). While the company had previously received law enforcements requests to hack into iPhone of their customers, the San Bernardino case was more profound because of the gravity of the offence.

Tim Cook, Apple CEO, publicly challenged the court order via an open letter hence eliciting intense debate on the thin line between protection of user privacy and an enhancing national security. Apple received support from major technology peers like Google and Facebook which concurred with them that the court order was an affront to privacy of individuals (Cunningham, 2016). They further contended that compliance with the order would amount to breach of the First Amendment rights of free speech. Eventually, the phone was hacked by a volunteer company from Israel hence the help of Apple was dispensed with.

Ethical Issues

Privacy over Security?

From the above controversy, there was and still exists, tension between user privacy and national security. The balance between the need for law enforcement to maintain security and companies’ role in protecting the privacy of its customers still remains as elusive as it was in 2016. There are two camps in this ethical dilemma (van Baalen, 2018). One camp believes and argues that security is paramount and should be achieved at all cost including allowing access to private data of customers. The other camp maintains that privacy of individuals is sacrosanct and should never be compromised even for security reasons and that any one-time concessions would amount to opening of the floodgates of privacy breach.

This controversy involved different stakeholders that would be affected by the events leading to Apple’s rejection of court order. At the center of everything were the users of iPhones who were at risk of their data being intercepted by the law enforcement and other unauthorized third parties (McCarthy, 2017). The general American population were also affected in that information obtained from the shooter’s phone could have prevented a future attack. Again the general population would also be affected in termed of privacy if a precedent was set by companies like Apple, of releasing user’s data to the authority without their approval. For the company involved, it presented the risk of weakening its security systems so that any unauthorized third party would gain access for whatsoever purpose.

Obstruction to Justice and free speech/privacy

The FBI in their duties of law enforcement needed information from Apple to assist I the investigations. Apple’s encryption precluded the FBI from accessing the required information. Therefore the encryption can be said to be an obstruction to justice. John Rawls concept of a well ordered society is applicable to this case (Bay, 2017). According to Rawls, society that is well ordered is one that does not conceal the internal activities of its social and political bodies and every citizen must accept the society’s principles of justice. Essentially citizens set the boundaries of the institutions of power for justice to be maintained. Hence, Apple’s obstruction of law enforcement will interpreted as obstructing the principles of justice set by the citizens.

Encryption conceals information from authorities can still be viewed as enhancing the basic liberties of citizens. Apple’s resistance to allowing the FBI to have a backdoor access to their encryption security system, in light, has been found to be justified to the extent that it protects privacy. According to the First Amendment, every person has the right to free speech which includes the right not to be compelled to say what you don’t wish to (Nielsen, 2018). The court order granted to the Justice Department to compel Apple to write and give codes to the FBI has thus been interpreted as a violation of free speech. In light of the concept Rawlsian well-ordered society, any such limitation and violation of civil liberties should emanate from a just consensus among citizens. Consequently, the government cannot claim to have the authority to access private data of citizens even for security reasons unless there is a general agreement of a just society.

Sample decision making tree for Apple leaders to assist in making the right choice (Bagley, 2003).

Individualism theory

According to Milton Friedman, any business has only one goal, to make profits. Its obligation to investors and shareholders is to make as much profit as possible. In light of individualism theory, Apple had the discretion with regard to the security of iPhone users, it could have chosen either to be concerned or not about the whole thing so long as it did not affect their revenue (Etzioni, 2018). Apple would have gladly handed over the codes to FBI to enable them access back door to their security system so long as such action would not substantially affect their customers’ perception of the company in relation the amount of profits to be realized. Conversely, if the granting of access to FBI was likely to cause loss in revenue as a result of backlash from customers, then from an individualist perspective, Apple would not acquiesce to the idea.

Utilitarianism

Both supporters of Apple’s decision and objectors can still use the utilitarianism to make their point (Selyukh and Domonoske, 2016). According to utilitarianism, every action undertaken should be to maximize the overall good while making the greatest number of people happy. In a business context, the largest number of people then would conveniently refer to stakeholders of a company. For the government, the largest number of people would then refer to the American people whose security is at stake.

Apple would thus comply with the order with the aim of pleasing the stakeholders or refuse to comply for a similar reason. Alternatively, it can be argued that the need to protect people from certain dangers by the government overrides the right to conceal information (Bay, 2017). Protection of the masses can thus be considered a public goods that when accomplished enhances maximum good to the largest number of people. Equally, it is possible that encryption systems by Apple ensure absolute freedom of speech which is greater than the need to protect people from vices like cyber-attacks. Either way, the utilitarian approach proves to be a malleable approach to business ethics that can accommodate diverse stands on a matter. Therefore it is a concept that may not necessarily offer solutions in ethical dilemma.

Kantianism

This concept is predominantly focused on ethical conduct in contrast with pursuit of ethical conducts for stakeholders. Kantianism revolves around the elements of freedom, autonomy and rational decision making. A Kantian would prefer approaching matter on the basis of truth to obtain rational consent of all parties rather than dishonesty in as a means to an end. Form a Kantianism background, Apple were right not to grant the FBI a backdoor access to the encrypted phone because there was no guarantee that information from the phone would prevent future attacks (Nielsen, 2018). That probability compared to the larger risk of undermining the security of millions of iPhone users, was lesser burden. Hence, the most ethical outcome was to maintain the security of Apple users’ data because this would affirm the trust that people had in the company that their data was safe at all times.

Virtue Theory

Virtue theory is concerned with evaluating ethical situations pegged on character traits and values. Over the years Apple has faced ethical controversies regarding their manner of business especially the manufacturing of Apple devices in China. Human rights groups have on several occasions raised the issue of working conditions and welfare of Chinese employees who assemble apple devices in China (Etzioni, 2017). Subsequently, one would argue that Apple already has manipulative traits so much that even if they complied with the court order, it would make them appear patriotic hence build its broken image. However, the realistic customer perception of Apple in the US is that of a company that values the security and privacy of its customers. Therefore, Apple would be right to want to maintain the positive virtues and values that it possess by refraining from betraying the trust placed upon it by iPhone users.

Conclusion

Regardless of the concept used to justify the action of either party, it is clear that both are committed to what they believe is their duty to the people they serve. FBI is a law enforcement agency that is to ensure security of all Americans and must do so by all means except when it is unjustified and goes beyond constitutional rights. In this case, Apple bears a duty to its customers to maintain their privacy. Apple was therefore justified to uphold its ethical duties to its customers by upholding the pillars of security and privacy of user (Martin, 2017). But that did not extend to refusing to open one gadget that could save lives of people based on information contained in it.

Recommendations

In the end, if the Apple’s goal is to ensure security of users. The solution in this case should be a compromise between Apple and FBI. However, this compromise should not extend to allowing law enforcement to gain the capability of arbitrarily accessing user data (Carter and Palermos, 2016). After incidences like that of 11/09/2001 security of the general public should take precedence over the right of a company to protect its interests and brand. Therefore Apple should have agreed to allow the FBI gain back door access to that one iPhone.

The government should ban the use of unbreakable encryption for purposes of security of the general population. While business ethics may demand that a company stays true to its values and traits, the same is inferior to grave security risks like terrorists attacks. Additionally, the government can invest more in technologies that can easily crack encryptions where a company refuses to comply and there is immediate danger of not gaining access to the information contained therein.

References

• Andregg, M. (2016). Ethical Implications of the Snowden Revelations. The International Journal of Intelligence, Security, and Public Affairs, 18(2), 110-131.
• Bagley, C.E., (2003) The Ethical Leader’s Decision Tree. Harvard Business Review
• Bay, M. (2017). The ethics of unbreakable encryption: Rawlsian privacy and the San Bernardino iPhone. First Monday, 22(2).
• Carter, J. A., & Palermos, S. O. (2016). The ethics of extended cognition: Is having your computer compromised a personal assault?
• Cunningham, C. D. (2016). Apple and the American Revolution: Remembering Why We Have the Fourth Amendment. Yale LJF, 126, 216.
• Dunlap Jr, C. J. (2016). Social Justice and Silicon Valley: A Perspective on the Apple-FBI Case and the Going Dark Debate. Conn. L. Rev., 49, 1685.
• Edgar, T. H. (2017). Beyond Snowden: Privacy, Mass Surveillance, and the Struggle to Reform the NSA. Brookings Institution Press.
• Etzioni, A. (2018). Apple: Good business, poor citizen? Journal of Business Ethics, 151(1), 1-11.
• Mansfield-Devine, S. (2016). The battle for privacy. Network Security, 2016(6), 11-15.
• Martin, J. A. (2017). Encryption Backdoors: A Discussion of Feasibility, Ethics, and the Future of Cryptography.
• McCarthy, B. J. (2017). Ethical Issues in Confronting Terrorism. In Justice, Crime, and Ethics (pp. 463-492). Routledge.
• Nielsen, R. P. (2018). Ethical and Legal First Amendment Implications of FBI v. Apple: A Commentary on Etzioni’s ‘Apple: Good Business, Poor Citizen?’ Journal of Business Ethics, 1-12.
• Selyukh, A. and Domonoske, C. (2016). “Apple, the FBI And iPhone encryption: A look at what’s at stake,” NPR(17 February), at http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/17/467096705/apple-the-fbi-and-iphone-encryption-a-look-at-whats-at-stake, accessed 16 April 2019.
• Stephan, K. (2017). Apple Versus the Feds: How a smartphone stymied the FBI. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 6(2), 103-104.
• van Baalen, S. (2018). ‘Google wants to know your location’: The ethical challenges of fieldwork in the digital age. Research Ethics, 14(4), 1-17.