One key to rule them all: An overview of Apple’s 2016 ‘master key’ conflict

When we think about technology one phrase comes to mind, ‘no limits’. Technological advancements have the potential to make the world a better place for everyone. From websites designed to help raise money for charitable organizations to ones that aim to help increase income for local communities by allowing them to sell handmade crafts online, companies like Google, Apple and IBM have helped make thousands of individual’s strides for a better tomorrow possible. It seemed almost as if the general public would always understand and respect any decision made by the industry as it would fall in line with this overall message of achieving the unachievable. This was the case until late 2016 when a huge disagreement took national news regarding Apple’s refusal to create a ‘master key’ for law enforcement agencies that would allow them to unlock iPhones that were recovered from crime scenes and terrorist organizations.

Congress argued that a creation of a so called, ‘master key’, was the moral and ethical duty of the company in order to assist its country and it’s people in the capturing of criminals. However, Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, refused to allow the creation of such a product stating that, though it would be fully possible and could be done over the span of 6 weeks, it would be an ethical violation of both their consumers privacy and what the tech industry stood for. This led to an influx of opinions from both the general public and other companies which, to say the least, marked a significant difference of opinion between the two. While other companies stood behind Mr. Cook’s decision stating that a ‘master key’ would be a huge security risk and could not be contained accordingly, many media outputs as well as the general public felt that it was a risk they should be willing to take, stating that the benefits, in their eyes, were greater than the risks. This difference in opinion was also met with serious consequences for the company as social media outcries began to arise calling for a boycott of the company. However, Apple remained firm on their stance as they drew a clear line indicating that their interests rested with the people and the efficiency of their products and they refused to compromise either. Other tech companies also sighted similar reactions from governmental organizations in the 1990’s when PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) first arose, an add on with the ability to encrypt emails leading to the government not being able to scan them for key terms.

The key to understanding the root of this disagreement lies in the overall understanding of the issue. While the public would view this topic as a ‘Law & Order’ matter, the tech sector viewed it as an undermindment of ‘Freedom of Expression’. This was a large issue for many as the disconnect in these points of view spoke about the public’s lack of understanding of these devices they use every day and how they operate. Even the most fundamental understanding of computer science and cybersecurity would make Apple’s stance justifiable. Another red flag issue that came out of this debate was the question of the value of individual privacy. Without realizing it, millions of people who protested Apple’s stance were also saying that they believed that the information they had to gain was worth sacrificing all their personal files and memories to be subdued to nothing more than governmental data. In a sense, the issue of ‘big brother’ that just ten years ago the public was outraged by, was now deemed acceptable because of the hypothetical benefits this ‘master key’ could pose. It is important to note here that those benefits are hypothetical. There is no guarantee that any information that could be recovered from these devices would help the case in any way as human logic would indicate that there would be additional barriers to decrypting these cases.

Overall, the 2016 debate of Apple’s ‘master key’ creation posed an important question with regards to the freedoms that the public valued the most. The rip between the general public’s and the tech industry’s stances was, and continues to be a large debate for many. Encryption and blockchain are the future of computing and as long as the industry continues to grow, so will the technology itself. We need to make it our personal mission to educate people on the importance of understanding how these devices work, how they save our information and why it is so important that such tools like the ‘master key’, that could compromise our personal safety, do not exist. Even though, many people will always view it as the lesser of two evils the reality is that this issue will always exist, and as long as tech companies like Apple and Microsoft continue to uphold their company standards these devices will always put their consumers first, even when they themselves don’t recognize this.