The free market is now our best hope for defending our right to privacy
The ongoing encryption wrangle between the FBI and Apple shows all too clearly how technology has created a scenario in which the market now offers the individual greater protection than the state does.
Imagine if the situation in the United States reaches the point whereby the government proposes some kind of boycott of Apple (not the ridiculous suggestions of that sinister clown Donald Trump, but something more direct), or if the company’s management were to be arrested, taking the Brazilian authorities’ lead over their dispute with Facebook, and that Apple then yielded to the Feds and created a tool that would allow its smartphones to be broken into. Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible.
What would happen then? That’s right: Apple and all the other tech companies would simply get to work on creating new technology to protect their customers’ privacy, while others, seeing the opportunity to come up with something really FBI-proof, would follow suit. Soon, being FBI-proof would become the new standard for communication apps. As anybody with an ounce of reason knows, the idea that the bad guys use Apple products is pretty ridiculous: there are any number of technologies already out there able to offer the same levels of security, many of which are made by non-US companies and therefore not subject to that country’s laws. John Oliver made a great point about that:
For example, chat app Telegram, whose growing popularity is in part due to its use of highly effective encryption, has just pushed the limit on its supergroups to 5,000 people in a move that could make it a key player in the cyberactivism sector. Many other tools also offer robust encryption for those looking for secure communication, and their popularity will take off as soon as some event, scandal, proof, or revelation highlights the importance of their use. Edward Snowden himself uses Signal, good luck trying to intercept that one!
If France or the United Kingdom finally implements their snooper’s charters, draft bills that would attempt to legally require Apple and other companies to provide security backdoors to their products for government agencies, then we can expect more and more people to start using encrypted messaging services.
As more and more governments ratchet up surveillance on their populations, more and more companies see a market opportunity. These days, only the simplest minds believe that using encrypted communications is in some way anti-patriotic or could endanger the fight against terrorism, child molesters, drug traffickers, etc. A growing number of people understand the importance of privacy and their right to use the encryptment services to guarantee it.
All of which means that our governments’ efforts to control us are a waste of time and more importantly, our money. It is quite simply not possible to stop people using certain applications or technologies, and trying to do so is, as said, is futile. The way we understand our governments’ demands to be able to access our electronic communication increasingly seems to be based on cultural, or generational factors.
The FBI might still win the fight with Apple. It seems unlikely, but under the threat of legal action and jail, Apple might have to back down. It could be that Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone is opened and that the US government is finally able to unlock every other iPhone it can get its hands on. But as said, Apple would simply respond by creating the technology that would prevent the FBI from being able to get into its newer models (the next iPhone not only has a fingerprint block option, but also a six-figure PIN). What’s more, public opinion would overwhelmingly be on the side of Apple and other phone manufacturers’ that did the same.
When the FBI picked its fight with Apple, it probably didn’t expect the current stand off. It probably believed that a terrorist attack would give it the perfect opportunity to force the issue and that it wouldn’t encounter much resistance. Apple’s decision to resist, and its ability to rally support in the industry and among the wider public, illustrates the importance of a clear understanding of what is at stake. And while there is reasonable demand for secure communication able to withstand any kind of spying, and while there is an active international technology industry, then the free market remains our best hope of defending our right to privacy.
(En español, aquí)
