Sam Harris on Apple v. FBI, Part II

Transcript from “Waking Up” podcast, episode “Throw Open the Gates”, 0:40–7:18, originally published on 24 February 2016

Pavol Vaskovic
5 min readFeb 18, 2017
Sam Harris responds to the feedback on Apple — FBI controversy in episode “Throw Open the Gates”, 0:40–7:18

The response to my initial thoughts about the Apple — FBI controversy was fairly crazy. That turned out to be much bigger story than it was when I recorded that last podcast. If I had waited a few days I would have a better sense of just how heated controversy I was wading into.

Now, first, I should say that many of you, in the process of telling me what an idiot I am say rather nice things like: you usually agree with everything I say and you find areas of disagreement even more valuable; you say you love this podcast because it makes you think and in a ways that you don’t always find comfortable and that discomfort is what you value most in the end. Now, I love that, that’s great! If I push your opinion around and some of them don’t budge, perhaps I didn’t need to. You might be right and I might be wrong. That’s why I talk about these things. I’m trying to reason in public. I don’t have all my ideas worked out in advance.

And as I thought I made clear about the Apple — FBI controversy, I was presenting my gut reaction on this topic and also waiting for more information to come in. And more information has come in! In fact many of you sent me some every good articles and emails. And some argue that there are practical impediments to Apple’s complying with the government’s request that I haven’t heard about. So I still don’t know what I think about this specific case.

And it could be that the mere existence of strong encryption is going to make many of these concerns moot. Which is to say that there will be impregnable zone of privacy whether we like it or not. It’s little bit like what 3D printing might do to hopes of gun control. If you can print a fully functioning gun at home, having merely downloaded a file from the Internet, well then the genie might just be out of the bottle forever.

But I’d like to make few general observations. In response to those of you who were absolutely sure that Apple shouldn’t cooperate with the government in any way. And you’re absolutely sure that this isn’t a complicated issue, ethically speaking. Because I’ve heard from many of you. OK. You are the same people who have no doubt that Edward Snowden is a hero — pure and simple. Because you think his contribution to the welfare of humanity is unambiguous and entirely good. Now, whether you know it or not, you are part of a new religion. I’m gonna give you a name for it, which you should feel free to use. You are part of the Cult of Privacy!

Once again, I’m not minimizing the problem of information security. Let me say that again: I am not minimizing the problem of information security. But if you believe that your texts and emails and photos and medical records and browser history are so precious and sensitive that no human purpose could justify they being viewed by others without your consent, no court order, no reasonable suspicion could justify government intrusion into your privacy, you are a devotee of this new faith.

Now obviously there are governments that are evil. In fact some of the most persuasive things said in defense of Apple is that their complying with the FBI’s demands would set a precedent that would put political dissidents at risk in the Middle East and in countries like China. And it’s true that we could imagine our own government one day taking an evil turn. Many of you have written asking me, would I want a Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin administration reading all of our emails? Obviously not. What are you suggesting? That Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, is the appropriate last line of defense against theocracy and tyranny in the United States? Is that really what you’re picturing?

What I’m hearing from many of you is a total lack of trust in government. And in any conceivable judicial process that would produce a search warrant. And all I can say is that this attitude is toxic. And is a problem that has to be solved. If you think that our government is that broken, well then you should come up with a plan to fix it. But the idea that no government should be able to execute a search warrant with respect to the data on the smartphone, because the FBI is the enemy, the NSA is the enemy, the Supreme Court is the enemy, the State is the enemy — that is pure paranoia and dogmatism and a recipe for anarchy. I really feel like I’m witnessing a birth of a new religion, without the supernatural elements. And this is boring and irrational and as blind to real question to human wellbeing as the old religions are. The public conversation we should be having at this point is about how and when our government, our legal institutions run by elected representatives, should have access to our private information.

And if your answer is never, no matter what, you are a child. And a child priest of this new faith.

I’m hearing from people, who in order to protect their sacred safe space inside their smartphone, they are willing to extend perfect privacy to known members of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. If you are one of these people, I hope you understand how irrelevant you’ve made yourself to the crucial project of maintaining the integrity of open societies like our own. Some of you apparently want government to have no tools whatsoever with which to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism, for instance. Because your privacy is just so important, but you post pictures of yourself half-naked on Instagram and let corporations track your every move.

Let me make one prediction. However we resolve the challenges of information security, there’s going to be some legal process whereby governments can spy on us. Or publicly demand our data. When the totality of threats in the 21st century is understood by rational adults, some role for government intrusion into out affairs, some legal process, whether overt or covert, some way of scrutinizing the behavior of dangerous people will remain necessary and inevitable.

And if you doubt that, don’t send your precious emails to me, send them to Edward Snowden. He will love them!

--

--

Pavol Vaskovic

Aspiring software craftsman, designer and paternal leave veteran. Conducted a failed experiment to finance his daughter's kindergarten via the App Store.