One of those decisions that involves an ethical dilemma is
the appealing of the government, which, in the midst of the investigation of
the San Bernardino’s terrorist act from last December (CBSnews.com),
requests Apple to create a decryption software that could access virtually each
and any part of their own iPhones. For Apple, this constitutes a major privacy
issue that would violate the privacy for its customers: “The government is
asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security
advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of
American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals.”(Apple.com)
Among those we can find Facebook’s CEO, Zuckerberg: “We’re
sympathetic with Apple on this one. We believe in encryption.” (wired.com).
Google’s CEO –and Apple’s competitor- is also taking part in Apple’s favor, to
defend the customer’s privacy, in favor of what could be considered as an
ethically acceptable perspective. CEO Pichai remarked how much all of Google’s
products are always created to protect customers and help in government’s task
of protecting customers, “[b]ut that’s wholly different than requiring
companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a
troubling precedent.” (wired.com)
That was one side of the story. The other side of this
delicate situation is that what the government is trying to do through –even appealing
to the 1879 All Writs Act- to access a cell phone that belonged to Syed Rizwan
Farook, who, along with his wife, “shot and killed 14 people and injured 21
others at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California on Dec. 2,
2015, before being shot to death by police” (cbsnews.com).
The government has solid reasons to believe that Farook’s phone keeps record to
some potential members of crime and terrorism organizations. At this point, the
iPhone remains locked, with no access to the authorities, so they cannot access
the valuable information inside the phone. Many valuable pieces of
investigation –that could ultimately prevent the government in avoiding future
attacks- cannot be accessed. According to the Attorneys in charge of the
request to Apple, “To the contrary, the Order [to unlock the phone] allows
Apple to retain custody of its software at all times, and it gives Apple flexibility
in the manner it provides assistance. In fact, the software never has to come
into the government’s custody.” (Decker,
Donahue et al., p.7)
To one side claiming to defend the ethical and moral
responsibility of preserving the privacy of their customers, we have another
side, claiming to have access to valuable evidence for protection on potential
future damage to citizens, which can be considered a genuine ethical and moral
responsibility, as well.
Without further delay, I ask you: What would you do and why?
Thanks for reading this post.
Carlos
