As we all know by now, privacy isn’t a term that can be simply defined by a sentence or a couple of sentences. It’s a term having a broad range of meanings and its attribution can differ from a situation to another. One’s own privacy is considered however to be in the time we live in as a sacred thing and many laws have been created for its defend. Of these laws is solitude, the right to be alone, limited access to the self which is the shielding of one-self off from unwanted access by people which is similar to a certain extent to secrecy. In this essay, we are concerned mainly with one main feature of privacy laws which is the control over flow of personal data and information. This is actually a very debatable issue which manifested lately in the case of the shooting in San Bernardino California when a debate originated as one of the shooters who killed innocent people left an Iphone in the crime scene and the FBI asked Apple company to make a kind of backdoor for such a case to help the FBI identify the killers.

Interestingly enough, according to a Pew Research Center survey, 51 percent of Americans participating in this survey took the side of the FBI compared to 31 percent taking the side of Apple (Kerstetter, 2016). So the question that arises here: “Should you be able to lock your phone so securely that even the F.B.I. cannot open it?” (Appuzo, 2016) I believe that the answer for this question should be a clear yes. For instance making a backdoor for such thing will open another door for many hackers and terrorists to increase their attacks on both the FBI and innocent people. Hence “Weakening Apple’s defences put us all at a risk” (Reitman, 2016). Furthermore, one in this case should think an utilitarian way. If we agree on making the Apple creating such code, the FBI may have an access along with other hackers to our daily private life. Adding this, to the level of corruption that the majority of governmental institution has woven in its fabric will make our daily private and sacred life in a risk of getting exposed. Beside of this, the Iphone may with no doubt be clear clue for the arrest of killers, however many other clues are out there for the FBI to search in as in the majority of crimes there are no Iphones left! Hence the FBI taking the easy way out should not be the expense of millions of people’s desire to have a private unshared life. Another illustration or an example of such a debate is Leonardo Fabbretti and his adopted son Dama case where Fabbretti begs the Apple company to help him retrieve photos of his dead son. This case if ever compared to the case of the shooting in San Bernardino, there is a common good for the father of Dama and to the parents of the victims of the attach in San Bernardino. However there’s also a more pronounced common mistrust people will have in Apple company for the same reasons of the case of San Bernardino.

In brief, I believe that ethically speaking the common good should always prevails on the good of a minority of people whatever the case is. Both cases represented here would’ve been omitted and should not be the reason to abolish the common good of millions of people out there.

References:

Appuzo, M. (2016). Should the Authorities Be Able to Access Your iPhone? Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/us/politics/whether-phones-should-lock-out-the-fbi.html?_r=1

Kerstetter, J. (2016). In Poll on Apple, Public Sides with F.B.I. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/technology/in-poll-on-apple-public-sides-with-fbi.html

Reitman, R. (2016). The Apple Fight Is About All of Us. Retrieved from: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/apple-fight-about-all-us

Father asks Apple head Tim Cook to unblock dead son’s iPhone (2016). Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/31/father-apple-tim-cook-unblock-dead-son-iphone-leonardo-fabbretti