Apple Morals Versus Fbi Security
In December 2015 the United States suffered a terrible tragedy when fourteen innocent people were gunned down in San Bernardino, California. The shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, got into a gun fight with the police immediately following the massacre. Both terrorists were fatally wounded, leaving many questions for law enforcement unanswered. In the investigations following, the authorities found an iPhone that belonged to Syed Rizwan Farook. This iPhone was password protected and may have held very important information regarding the shootings and other possible acts of terrorism. The FBI took the lead on the case and was not able to unlock the phone without sacrificing the integrity of the data inside. They turned to Apple for help and asked for their cooperation; Apple complied willingly. Apple respected the subpoenas and search warrants the government ordered. However, the FBI then requested that Apple build a new software which that will give the FBI a virtual back door to any iPhone they come across. Apple refused to do such a thing because it would be morally wrong and could risk all of their customers’ rights to privacy.
The FBI went to The United States District Court for the Central District of California to compel Apple to make this software for them. However, Apple is denying any such order because if a powerful organization like the FBI or the United States Government were to have the ability to hack into anyone’s phone, then where is our basic right to privacy. This is personal security vs. national security with no precedent or rules set prior. There is no right or wrong answer here. We have two very important points that hold high moral values and can be viewed many different ways. If you look at this through the eyes of Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, you would see that the FBI and the US Government are trying to make an exception for this terrorist’s privacy. The FBI says once they get the software to open the phone, it will just be a “one off” situation and they will not use the software again. However, they would still possess this software and as long as it is out there it threatens all citizens’ personal security. Kant would very much disagree and would take Apple’s side in this matter. Kant thinks you should not make any exceptions for yourself and that you should keep your rules and standards the same. He believes our actions must become a universal law and that we should stay true to that law. To make an exception for you and your interests is selfish and you would be breaking these moral laws. In this case the US government is trying to make an exception to compromise its citizens’ rights to privacy, for the sake of national security. Immanuel Kant may also say that the FBI is prisoner to its own desires. The FBI cannot move forward properly until they can control their desire to get to the bottom of this case. Only then they will see that this software is not the best solution. They are so fixated on solving this massacre that they are willing to hurt the very people they are protecting by compromising personal security and privacy. If the FBI would just put their desires aside then they could think of a way to get what they want without needing this software, like hiring a third party company to hack the phone. Kant also believes that in society we must treat everyone with respect. As living beings who are able to reason, we deserve respect.
The FBI would be disrespecting everyone by posing a threat to their personal information. True Kantian respect means you respect everyone without prejudice, including terrorists. Now of course Kant is not right about everything. It would be wrong to give these terrorists respect and to mind their privacy. However, there is a line to be drawn; to take a terrorist’s privacy away at the expense of every US citizen is preposterous. The FBI can and did find a way to access the encrypted data in the terrorist’s phone and they did it without sacrificing everyone else’s privacy. Yet they still pushed for Apple to create software for hacking purposes. This is a clear form of disrespect in Kant’s eyes and it should be granted no leeway. Looking at this from the perspective of the Hebrew Bible, this situation relates to Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit, when they take the fruit and then God punishes them by kicking them out of the Garden. The FBI is trying to break the rules and compromise the security of all Apple users. As of right now there is no former precedent set for technology and how much the US government can intervene with the private encrypted data of an individual user. As a country we need to recognize the weight of this situation and put certain rules in place to protect our individual rights. Later in the Hebrew Bible, God put the Ten Commandments in place for the personal well-being of his people. Right now they say they just want it for the terrorist, but how long before that turns into all Apple consumers, and then how long until that turns into all US citizens being monitored by their government. Being monitored and having your digital footprint tracked is not freedom. The United States government needs to realize this and put our personal well-being first just as God did with his people. God put the Ten Commandments into place so there was a basic set of guidelines to ensure stability and to prevent unnecessary chaos. Society need rules like this put in place so the United States government does not get too powerful and start gaining characteristics of a totalitarian regime.
When the government starts monitoring your every move it is too late. If the FBI were to disrespect the basic human right to privacy, then it is up to the rest of the government to recognize this and put rules in place to protect the citizens. The Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible, are the basic set of moral laws that keep people in check. The United States needs a “Ten Commandments” or set of rules for this technology dispute, to keep the government in check and ensure the privacy of the people. This FBI and Apple dispute is the first of its kind. This case was dismissed in the end because the FBI got a third party to hack the phone and get the data, but the precedent has failed to be established. This means privacy and personal security are still at risk when it comes to national security. The morals of this argument are still being debated, but no actual action is taking place. In my opinion I think it is important to ensure the personal security of the people the government is trying to protect rather than risking that to ensure national security. The FBI was able to hack the individual phone without trying to gain access to all iPhones. They could monitor everyone then it would be a much safer place, but then it feels like a dictatorship or something where we are all being watched. I would not feel truly free if I was being monitored all the time. The FBI was still able to get the information they needed and can protect our country accordingly. I agree with both the Kantian and the Hebrew Bible’s perspectives on this ethical dilemma. The FBI should not make an exception for this one act of terror to just now start trying to gain access to the majority of the population’s phones. The FBI could have easily hired a third party like they did to crack the phone instead of trying to get access to others’ phones too. I also believe that the FBI has clouded judgement. They are so dedicated to protecting us and promoting security that they do not realize they are violating our rights or privacy. Once they take a step back and reevaluate their true purpose, which is to protect and serve, they will see the wrong they are doing. Serving their community and making everyone feel safe is their job and I feel the best way to do that is to protect them while also ensuring their own personal and private security. With philosophies like Kantian ethics and The Hebrew Bible supporting Apple in their fight against the FBI; the morally right choice leans in Apple’s favor.
Supporting factors such as not making exceptions for any one thing, treating everyone with respect, and the FBI’s clouded judgement, help argue a precedent for the matter on encrypted data and the ability of the government to get involved. It is also important to recognize The Hebrew Bible’s point of view and how rules are put in place for a reason. Rules are there to ensure stability and safety. A new precedent is up for debate and this case is one to pave the way for future dilemmas. When it comes down to privacy or national security, the people would want privacy. People want to feel safe and don’t want to be vulnerable having someone continuously watching and monitoring their every move. Apple won this case standing up for the privacy of its customers and that itself made them feel safe.
Works Cited
- Cook, Tim. 'Customer Letter - Apple. ' Apple. N. p. , 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
- 'FBI–Apple Encryption Dispute. ' Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n. d. Web. 18 May 2016.
- Pierson, David. 'FBI vs. Apple: How Both Sides Were Winners and Losers. ' Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 29 Mar. 2016. Web. 30
- Apr. 2016. 'San Bernardino Shooting Updates. ' Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 09 Dec. 2015. Web. 01 May 2016.
- 'Why Did God Give the Ten Commandments?' Pathway to Victory. N. p. , 01 May 2015. Web. 15 May 2016.
