Paper 2 – The Ethics of Closed Doors

Michael O’Neill

Stakeholder Organization – MGMT 302

Table of Contents

Case…………………….……………2

Exhibits…………………….………..7

Ethical Discussion…….…………….9

References…………………………10

2

April 19, 2016

Michael O’Neill

Apple’s Closed Doors We’ve always had a very different view of privacy than some of our colleagues in the [Silicon] Valley. We take privacy extremely seriously. [9]

– Steve Jobs, Co-Founder of Apple, 2010

We believe that people have a fundamental right to privacy. The American people demand it, the constitution demands it, morality demands it. [12]

– Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, 2015

On February 16, 2016, Apple Inc. issued a statement detailing its decision to reject the

FBI’s request to redesign its iPhone software in order to access encrypted information about a terrorist attack. This action ignited a nationwide discussion about the relationship between customer privacy and national security. Apple Inc.

Apple Inc. started in April of 1976 by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. The technology company took the industry by storm, creating innovative and aesthetically advanced products like the revolutionary Macintosh computer, as well as the iPod, an MP3 player, and iTunes, a digital music distributor.

In the midst of Apple’s success, Steve Jobs, the more vocal of the two founders, became a public icon for his ingenuity and obsession with creating high quality products. Even though he had a wavering relationship with his own company due to attitude problems, he went down in history as one of the world’s greatest innovators when he passed away on October 11, 2011.[18] On August 24, 2011, Executive Vice President Tim Cook was named Jobs’ successor as CEO. Apple has never been a company to shy away from risky decisions if it meant benefitting its customer. In fact, when Apple began marketing, it positioned itself as a rebel. Displayed in

3

Exhibit 1, Apple’s 1984 Super Bowl commercial created a scenario like George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, except in this minute-long clip, a woman throws a hammer at the all-seeing Big Brother. Reading “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like ‘1984,’” this commercial symbolized how Apple’s purpose is to provide the customer with a customizable and free-thinking experience, devoid of government oversight.

Apple has continued to promote this ideology through its corporate actions. The most recent rejection of government intervention was not an isolated event. It was actually part of a long chain of decisions that attempted to keep the balance between security and privacy. In 2013, Apple released two statements regarding its involvement with the government and its attempt to gather data. When accused of sharing data with a government program called “Prism,” Apple stated, “We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order.” [2] In a similar fashion, Apple once again stood up for itself in a separate statement within the same year, saying, “Apple has never worked with the NSA to create a backdoor in any of our products, including iPhone. Additionally, we have been unaware of this alleged NSA program targeting our products. We care deeply about our customers’ privacy and security.” [10] San Bernardino Terrorist Attack

On December 2, 2015, there was a shooting in San Bernardino, California. Syed Rizwan Farrok and Tashfeen Malik, a married couple, killed 14 people and severely injured 22 others. After the shooting and attempted bombing, the two terrorists were chased down and killed in a shootout. It was later discovered that the two were not directly associated with any prominent terrorist organizations, but were rather violent extremists inspired by foreign terrorist groups. [19] The Government’s Order In the wake of the massacre, the FBI’s investigation led to the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farrok, the male terrorist. The government believed that there was important information about the attack in the phone, but it could not unlock it in order to retrieve the contents. Therefore, the FBI ordered Apple to create a brand new version of the iPhone’s operating system in order to circumvent many important security features, which would allow the investigators to recover the information on Farrok’s iPhone. [6] The FBI had told Apple that it just wanted to unlock this one phone.

Thus far, Apple had been completely compliant with the FBI’s efforts during this case, stating, “When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case.” [6]

Apple’s Reaction Immediately, Apple outright denied the FBI’s request. A few days later, Tim Cook published an open letter to Apple’s customers on its official website, explaining “This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand

4

what is at stake.” [6] He was adamant about denying the government’s order, plainly stating, “The U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.” [6] This theoretical backdoor could retrieve the information necessary in the San Bernardino case, but it could also open many doors that shouldn’t be opened. To help visualize it, Cook wrote, “In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks.” [6] This type of tool was something Apple has always stood against. Apple saw this order as a breach of customer rights and a misuse of power, stating, “Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.” [6] Signed by George Washington himself, The All Writs Act “gives federal judges the power to issue orders to compel people to do things within the limits of the law,” which is what Apple feared the FBI would finally achieve. [11] In response to this action, Apple came out with a strong statement: “Our country has always been strongest when we come together. We feel the best way forward would be for the government to withdraw its demands under the All Writs Act and, as some in Congress have proposed, form a commission or other panel of experts on intelligence, technology, and civil liberties to discuss the implications for law enforcement, national security, privacy, and personal freedoms. Apple would gladly participate in such an effort.” [6] Aftermath The case was taken to Brooklyn federal court, where Apple initially won. During this process, FBI Director James Comey admitted that this was not really a one-time deal, and that the FBI had planned on asking for more phones to be unlocked. [7] The Justice Department then appealed the ruling, hoping to finally get Apple to unlock Farrok’s iPhone. The case was heated, and was even expected to be brought to the Supreme Court. However, before the hearing was over, the department withdrew its claim, declaring that the FBI had found another way to access the information. [17] With the whole world tuned into this major debate between security and privacy, the FBI revealed that it had hacked the phone using a third party. The New York Post weighed in on this development, publishing, “The FBI’s announcement that it mysteriously hacked into an iPhone is a public setback for Apple Inc., as consumers suddenly discover they can’t keep their most personal information safe. Meanwhile, Apple remains in the dark about how to restore the security of its flagship product.” [3] Rather than waiting on the resistant Apple, The FBI had paid professional hackers to access the contents of the phone. The third party was later exposed as Cellebrite, an Israeli tech firm. [8] The Issue of Privacy The dispute between Apple and the American government stirred up a dialogue about the relationship between security and privacy. While many see the two as opposites, Tim Cook testifies, “We at Apple reject the idea that our customers should have to make tradeoffs between privacy and security.” [12] He strongly believes that Apple isn’t like other companies in the technology industry, who he sees as “gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying

5

to monetize it.” In his opinion, he says, “We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.” [12] In its official privacy policy, Apple states, “We never sell your data. We know that the more personal your device becomes, the more critical it is to respect the data that’s on it.” [14] Apple continues to retain its view on customer privacy, especially within Cook’s public letter. He attempts to comfort Apple customers, writing, “We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.” [6] Government Access Yes, the government’s access to a backdoor in the iPhone could lead to valuable information in the context of national security, especially with the San Bernardino case. However, there are also repercussions to the government ordering such a tool. As Apple claims, this order “has implications far beyond the legal case at hand” [6] Theoretically, this backdoor could open any iPhone that is physically present. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has gone on record stating that the federal government just wants to open “the phones in question,” but Apple sees this as a slippery slope. [5] In its formal letter, it states, “While the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.” [6] There is no way to know how far the government could go in the use of this all-access backdoor. For instance, “The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge” [6] Tim Cook goes as far as to say that this request “has a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights and undermines our country’s founding principles” [12] Logistically, Cook fears that the creation of a backdoor would give access to people other than the government. He says, “If you put a key under the mat for the cops, a burglar can find it, too.” [12] The American Reaction There were many Americans who weighed in on the very public situation. Starting at the roots, shortly after Tim Cook released Apple’s official statement on the case, co-founder Steve Wozniak spoke out in the press. He publicly said that if he were involved in the decision, he would vigilantly fight the FBI’s order, and he believes Steve Jobs would have thought the same. [13] The media seemed to have agreed with Apple in this scenario, as depicted by the political cartoons in Exhibit 2. On the other hand, there were public figures who spoke out for the other side of the argument. Presidential candidate Donald Trump was very vocal about the case at a campaign event in Paleys Island, South Carolina, rallying his supporters to “boycott Apple until such time as they give that information.” [15] Similarly, founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates, admitted he “supports the government’s contention that unblocking encrypted data from San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone makes sense.” [1]

6

What Now? The FBI’s contention with Apple will not be the last case that involves the contention between security and privacy. This case was a very public example of an ever-growing category of debates here in the United States. Apple hopes to help relieve this tension, stating that it will “continue to work hard to strike the right balance between fulfilling our legal responsibilities and protecting our customers’ privacy as they expect and deserve.” [12] In order to work towards this initiative, Apple believes “transparency and dialogue are the best ways for finding solutions to the overarching impact from surveillance laws and practices. We are continuing to engage with the White House, government regulators, legislators, and courts around the world regarding the importance of protecting customer data and security.” [14]

7

Exhibit 1 Apple’s 1984 Super Bowl Advertisement [16]

8

Exhibit 2 Political Cartoons Published About Apple vs. The FBI

9

The Ethics of Closed Doors – Apple and Deontology The Deontological school of thinking is a perfect way to assess the ethics of this case. Deontology is rooted in Greek, and translates to “that which is proper” or “what ought to be.” [4] This ethical school of thinking is essentially about our duty, and the commitment to doing “what is right.”

Since Apple has clearly made privacy one of its pillars in its company statement, then by protecting it, it is demonstrating deontological actions. This was an ethical choice, because like all of its other attempts to stop other parties from collecting sensitive information, the company had a genuine goal of helping out its customers. On its privacy page, Apple answers the question of whether or not this was just a marketing move, stating, “Absolutely not. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is and always has been about our customers. We feel strongly that if we were to do what the government has asked of us — to create a backdoor to our products — not only is it unlawful, but it puts the vast majority of good and law abiding citizens, who rely on iPhone to protect their most personal and important data, at risk.” [6] I respect Apple’s transparency throughout this whole process. It understands that this has a marketing aspect to it, but it really is attempting to build trust with its customers. This move isn’t just a passing marketing campaign, but rather a repeated trend that goes back to the root of the company. Apple believes “in telling you up front exactly what’s going to happen to your personal information and asking for your permission before you share it with us. And if you change your mind later, we make it easy to stop sharing with us. Every Apple product is designed around those principles. When we do ask to use your data, it’s to provide you with a better user experience.” [6] If maintaining the privacy of its customers is considered the duty of Apple, then it is definitely making ethical decisions. However, in today’s world, it is hard to not ask the question: How much privacy are citizens awarded? Is Apple striving to salvage an aspect of life that we are inevitably going to lose? Has security become more important than privacy, or is Apple increasing security by not exposing our private information? Unfortunately, society has evolved to blur the lines between privacy and security.

10

References:

[1] Algar, Selim, and Bob Fredericks. "Bill Gates Sides with FBI in IPhone Hacking Case." New York Post. N.p., 23 Feb. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://nypost.com/2016/02/23/bill-gates-sides-with-fbi-in-iphone-hacking-case/>.

[2] "Apple's Commitment to Customer Privacy." Apple -. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/>.

[3] Associated Press. "Apple Still in the Dark about How FBI Hacked IPhone." New York

Post. N.p., 29 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://nypost.com/2016/03/29/apple-still-in-the-dark-about-how-fbi-hacked-iphone/>.

[4] Bentham, Jeremy, and Amnon Goldworth. Deontology; Together With A Table Of The

Springs Of Action; And The Article On Utilitarianism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

[5] Cohen, Kelly. "Lynch: 'we do Not Want a Backdoor' into Apple." The Examiner Mar 09

2016. ProQuest. Web. 19 Apr. 2016 .

[6] Cook, Tim. "A Message to Our Customers." Apple. N.p., 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/>.

[7] Covert, James. "FBI's James Comey Had an Embarrassing Day against Apple." New York

Post. N.p., 02 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://nypost.com/2016/03/02/fbis-james-comey-had-an-embarrassing-day-against-apple/>.

[8] Covert, James. "FBI's Secret IPhone-hacking Method Is Embarrassing to All Parties."

New York Post. N.p., 29 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://nypost.com/2016/03/29/fbis-secret-iphone-hacking-method-is-embarrassing-to-all-parties/>.

[9] Iwasjojo. "Steve Jobs on Privacy, Steve Jobs at the D8 Conference (Video)." YouTube.

YouTube, 26 June 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo>.

[10] Kovach, Steve. "APPLE: We Had No Idea The NSA Has A Way To Spy On Your IPhone." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 31 Dec. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-nsa-statement-2013-12>.

[11] Lewis, Danny. "What the All Writs Act of 1789 Has to Do With the IPhone."

Smithsonian. N.p., 24 Feb. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-all-writs-act-1789-has-do-iphone-180958188/?no-ist>.

[12] Panzarino, Matthew. "Tim Cook Gives Blistering Privacy Speech." TechCrunch.

11

N.p., 2 June 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/apples-tim-cook-delivers-blistering-speech-on-encryption-privacy/>.

[13] Pramuk, Jacob. "Wozniak: Steve Jobs Would Have Fought for Privacy." CNBC. N.p.,

18 Feb. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/18/steve-wozniak-jobs-would-have-fought-for-privacy.html>.

[14] "Privacy - Apple." Apple. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.apple.com/privacy/>.

[15] Reuters. "Trump Calls for Boycott until Apple Unlocks Shooter's Phone." New York Post. N.p., 19 Feb. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://nypost.com/2016/02/19/trump-calls-for-boycott-until-apple-unlocks-shooters-phone/>.

[16] RobertKCole. "Apple 1984 Super Bowl Commercial Introducing Macintosh

Computer (HD)." YouTube. YouTube, 25 June 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA>.

[17] Sheehy, Kate. "FBI Breaks into San Bernardino Gunman's IPhone, Ending Court

Case." New York Post. N.p., 28 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://nypost.com/2016/03/28/fbi-breaks-into-san-bernardino-gunmans-iphone-ending-court-case/>.

[18] Watson, William, and Mary M. Crossing. "APPLE (A)." Ivey Publishing (2012): n.

pag. Harvard Business Review. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.

[19] "2015 San Bernardino Attack." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack>.

Political Cartoons on Google Images: • http://teachufr.org/krismcdaniel/apple-national-security-political-cartoons/ • http://api.theweek.com/sites/default/files/222AppleFBI.jpg • https://www.cagle.com/2016/02/apple-vs-fbi-2/ • http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef01b7c81a13b2970b-800wi • https://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/4af60c95-fbad-48cb-af5b-7a129c05060a.html • http://api.theweek.com/sites/default/files/20160222edwas-a.jpg?resize=450x450 • https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cc4aTmNUMAAHfdm.jpg