In Apple, or the FBI, Do We Trust?

The PR Battle between Privacy vs. Security

Published in

Homeland Security

6 min readMar 5, 2016

Do you remember the first time when you became the proud owner of your first IPhone? If you felt anything like I did, then you felt excited, empowered, and, maybe even a bit humbled. At the time, I had already known that owning an IPhone was going to change my life for the better. How could I not? Apple was giving me more relationships, ownership, and the freedom to take more control of how I manage and enhance my life.

Grateful to Apple for the privilege of becoming a member of its worldwide, known as to some Android users as a cult-like community, we as iPhone users were now part of a culture that took pride in owning a product of Apples. Yet, on that day in the Apple store, blinded by my emotions of joy in owning an iPhone, did I ever stop to think my commitment to Apple would result in my own online scrapbook of my life — capturing my every move in pictures, emails, and texts — that would later in life be up for the taking for anyone who looked. Would I ever believe a day would come where my private life (at the moment not so exciting. Thanks, CHDS) could serve as key to achieving a larger purpose — our purpose to protect this nation as American citizens and ensure our family, friends, and neighbors are safe from harm. So, what do you ask yourself now before buying be it any piece of property these days that downloads your life space? Do I surrender a little of my privacy to gain a little more security?

Over the past few weeks, Apple has been at the center of a legal showdown with the feds which has reignited the national debate on data encryption, fighting against the FBI to keep a security “back door” out of your iPhone. Just yesterday, Apple scored a legal victory over the FBI, which first began out of controversy over whether Apple should allow the FBI custom access to an iPhone used by one of the two terrorist who killed 14 people in San Bernandino this past January. On February 16th, Apple executives sent a letter to their customers explaining their current woes with the federal government. In the letter, Apple insists that the current demands by the government threaten the security of their customers. They also call for “public discussion, and our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.”

I don’t think the federal government would disagree with Apple’s call for a public discussion. But the difference here is the federal government is not Apple, and unlike Apple, is faced with a public that is already hesitant to offer them their trust. Fortunately for the government, but unfortunate due to the circumstances, the ongoing court battle with Apple has created a new forum that allows them to actively engage with the public. Using the opportunity to frame their argument as a simple trade-off, the government puts the onus on the public to take control of their own lives and gives them the option to A) give up a little more privacy if B) you want more security.

In countering Apple’s message, the government has presented the issue of back door encryption in a way that the American public perceives their argument as a reasonable request. This obfuscates the potentially dangerous precedent that access to encrypted data on a terrorist’s iPhone would represent. Now, the government has found the only effective way to win over the courts is that they must win over the public’s trust and ultimately their consent.

FBI director James Comey most recently pushed this notion in an op-ed for Lawfare.

“We have awesome new technology that creates a serious tension between two values we all treasure: privacy and safety,” he writes. “That tension should not be resolved by corporations that sell stuff for a living. It also should not be resolved by the FBI, which investigates for a living.”

In his statement, Director Comey acknowledges the fact that those who make a profit or get paid to protect our privacy and security should by no means be involved with the decision to allow or disallow access to our information gateway of life. In a long-simmering dispute between law enforcement and Silicon Valley over encrypted phones, the federal government is seeing an unwavering amount of support by law enforcement and their hope to achieve more access of information to hunt for killers, human traffickers, child pornographers, and other offenders. In comparison, Apple has also gained a few more allies with companies such as Microsoft and Facebook that are joining the fight against government intervention to unlock data that’s encrypted. But, let’s not also forget their loyal consumer-ship and the unassuming role the iPhone has played in social movements and relationships.

In both cases, Apple and the federal government are vying for the public’s trust to win the argument over privacy versus security. But is it really a battle of over privacy versus security or is it really a battle of who messages better than who? A recent Pew Research poll found that 51 percent of Americans think Apple “Should unlock the iPhone to assist the ongoing FBI investigation,” while 38 percent say Apple should not. (The rest had no opinion.) It appears that the specter of terrorism and the false coupling of privacy and security is an ideal combination to get the public to buy what the FBI is selling.

What do you think is necessary for either side to win over the argument in court? Has it become a public relations stunt by the feds to force the issue of back door encryption? Are we losing trust in our Tech companies since we are now more aware of threats to our own lives? We recognize a decision has to be made to shutdown either side of the argument sooner or later. We must decide the balance between both, but should it be rooted in whom we trust, Apple or the Government.