Apple vs. FBI Case Study

This case study delves into the legal and ethical battle between Apple and the FBI following a terrorist attack in San Bernardino. The FBI sought Apple's assistance in unlocking an iPhone, leading to a conflict over privacy and security. Apple refused to create a backdoor, citing concerns about potential misuse, while the FBI argued for national security. The case highlights the tension between individual privacy and government surveillance, exploring ethical frameworks like virtue ethics and deontology. Ultimately, the case underscores the need for a robust system that balances both security and privacy.

Apple vs. FBI
This case came into headlines when 14 people were killed and 22 were injured when a terrorist
attack took place in San Bernardino, California. After the incident, FBI got hold of an iPhone 5C
and they tried to access all the important data from the phone. As per the court orders, they took
help from the manufacturer, Apple Inc., and were able to unlock the phone. Later on FBI
pressurized the company to design such a system that would help them bypass the security
system of iPhone – 10-try limit. Apple, however, denied to design such platform that would
allow the FBI to successfully bypass without trying all the possible combinations (Kharpal,
2016). This attitude on the part of the company angered the US Government.
In terms of ICT, this case exemplifies the issue of privacy and security. The program that the
Government wanted Apple to create was a backdoor, which could possibly be used as much as
possible to crack any number of devices. This, according to the company, would tantamount to
creating a master key capable to unlock any number of locks, which would simply be acceptable
to any person. Therefore, with this difference of attitudes, a moral and legal battle was ensued
between the two entities and a discussion was started even among the masses as to where the
moral lines be drawn as far as privacy and security are concerned. The refusal of Apple
Computers to toe the line of FBI or Government and taking an ethical stance makes the situation
a classical example of following of “Virtue Ethics”. As we know that virtue ethics are only
concerned with one’s virtues and moral character (Hursthouse, 2003). In this case as well Apple
took a decision to care for the values and took a stand for the public that it was morally wrong to
compromise with the security of their data so that it could be prevented from getting misused.
Even before this case, there has been a long debate regarding the protection of an individual’s
privacy. So, from a moral point of view, the present case has definitely encouraged a public
debate regarding an issue where repeated requests made by law enforcement agencies could have
grave implications in terms of misuse of data belonging to the general public. In a recent case
where a whistleblower, Edward Snowden, who worked with NSA, threw light on the matter of
state surveillance overreach. This led a passionate public outcry regarding their privacy and on
account of that a good reason for the politicians to legislate a relevant law and lay down privacy
red lines.
The approach of looking at this case can be from the point of view of “deontology”. It is the field
of psychology which is concerned with one’s duties and rules with which he/she should act at a
particular situation without thinking about the consequences that the very act may or may not
bring (Balestrieri, 2009). Apple Computers on being cajoled by the Government, customized the
version of iOS allowing FBI to figure out how to get access to that specific iPhone. However,
this point of view is self-defeating as it would not be suffice to create a backdoor just for the case
in consideration. The loophole intentionally created in this manner will eventually make the
platform more vulnerable and therefore could be exploited and misused by the people such
hackers or dangerous professionals. The common examples of such an act of compromise with
the security and privacy is attack of bugs, viruses, malwares and Trojans enabled due to such
vulnerabilities. So, even if such vulnerabilities are mandated by the government, the step on the
part of any company would not only be ethically wrong but could set a dangerous precedent

because it would definitely going to open up the floodgates for the data to be stolen and misused.
The larger issue that arises at this point in time following this tussle between these two entities is
that there is no such thing as a completely secure system. Secondly, the FBI finally figured out as
to how to get access to the iPhone, the chances are highly likely that they can crack any other
Apple devices as many number of times as they can. Also, it is important to note that, in relation
to this case, more often than not, the legal loopholes have, for far too long, been utilized as an
effective strategy to enforce the surveillance powers without getting into any public debate and
required scrutiny of such an act. It definitely amounts to the government’s attempt in using an
obfuscation strategy to circumvent the encryption.
In relation to this case, the privacy of the public notwithstanding, there is one more important
dimension that emerges over here. The debate on the backdrop of this very incident took a
completely new turn – a choice between privacy and national security. We should not forget that
the tension has emerged between Apple and FBI was because of an act of terrorism in which
innocent people had to lose their precious lives. May be the Government therefore desperately
wanted to get access to the important data in the iPhone because chances were very much there
that it held clue to find more terrorists or their planning (Dobrzyn & Mably, 2016). So, if we put
ourselves in the shoes of the victims of such incidents, we would only end up thinking about the
security of the nation. Circumstances are replete when the Government agencies took help from
the experts or relevant technologies to thwart the threat emanating from such acts of terrorism for
the society at large.
At the end of the dispute, the position of Apple, by its own admission, maintained that the way
with which FBI broke into the database of Apple’s security could bring undesirable
consequences if misused grossly. Its apprehensions were that cyber criminals would most likely
use this method of encryption to get access to their database. On the other hand, FBI put across
the argument of national security and tried to justify their stand of having the encryption done by
a third company. But the one winner who emerges out of this dispute is public because after this
whole episode was over, the public came to know that their devices are not secure any longer.
So, a robust system should be put in place which not only addresses the security but the privacy
as well.

References
Balestrieri, P. (2009). Autonomy versus deontology. International Journal Of Obstetric
Anesthesia,18(2), 189-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2008.10.004
Dobrzyn, E. & Mably, T. (2016). Pro/Con: Is Apple right to fight the FBI? – PCC
Courier.Pcccourier.com. Retrieved 14 September 2016, from
http://www.pcccourier.com/opinion/apple-2.html
Hursthouse, R. (2003). Virtue Ethics. Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 14 September 2016, from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Kharpal, A. (2016). Apple vs FBI: All you need to know. CNBC. Retrieved 14 September 2016,
from http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html