Apple: privacy vs. safety. Business & Marketing. Case Study

Privacy vs. Safety
Name
Institution
Due Date
Privacy vs. Safety
What are some of the ethical dilemmas facing Apple and the government?
The first ethical dilemma is where to strike the balance between safety and privacy. Apple’s main goal is to create products which meet the needs of the users. It is a business and profits, how many products it sells as well as its reputation will always be important factors during decision-making periods. The government, on the other hand, seeks to ensure that the country’s interests are protected and that the people are kept safe. Its agenda to ensure that the citizens are safe often overlaps with the agenda of privacy that organizations like Apple are keen to uphold. In the recent past, Apple and other tech giants have been up in arms protesting against the government’s push to have access to people’s data that these organizations have. Spetalnick (2013) quotes President Obama in one of his explanations regarding Big Brother. Obama said, “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience…We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.” To Obama and the government, it does make sense for the government to have access to data. However, after the San Bernardino incident, Tim Cook (Apple CEO) said: “if those of us in positions of responsibility fail to do everything in our power to protect the right of privacy, we risk something far more valuable than money” (McGee et al., 2016).
Apple has a moral obligation to protect the data of its clients and the government has an obligation to provide security to the people. This is another issue that keeps driving a wedge between the government and tech giants like Apple. As noted by Cook, Apple and other tech giants are in “positions of responsibility” and while in these positions, they need to act while considering the implications of their actions. One which is quite obvious is the loss of trust between tech companies and their customers which translates to lost revenue. In 2013, McGee et al. (2016) write that tech giants “met with U.S. President Obama to discuss the consequences of the NSA programs for the industry.” Apparently, US tech giants were losing a lot of money and McGee et al. note that the American cloud lost almost $35 billion in a period of three years. However, the government has a moral obligation to provide security to the people and from its perspective, it is only through access to more information that it will be able to protect the people.
If you were in Cook’s shoes, would you comply with the court order to help the FBI access the data on the iPhone used in the San Bernardino shooting? Why or why not?
No.
First of all, Apple is a business and its driven by profits. There is no single business in the world that is in the business of making losses. In the wake of Snowden’s revelations, companies like “Cisco systems saw a drop in customers, especially outside the U.S.” (McGee et al., 2016). Clients from all over the world started to resent American tech companies because of the risk of having their data collected. Countries all over the world adopted measures to help make sure that their data and that of their people is safe. These are initiatives that hurt a lot of American companies business-wise. Looking at the chart below, Apple appears to be doing quite well when one assesses its market capitalization. The chart which shows the top 10 companies by Market Capitalization (in billions of dollars), from 2010 to 2015, Apple appears to be leading the group. Losing this would be disastrous for the company. So, I would not consider the option of helping the FBI.
There is also the risk of putting Apple in a position of compromise whenever such an issue occurs. By agreeing to help the FBI, Cook would be setting a precedent that Apple is willing to comply with governments and authorities. Jenny Durkan (Cyber Law and Privacy Group at Quinn Emanuel law firm) said that “it is a dangerous precedent to order a company to purposely breach a product’s security” (Carollo, 2016). It would thus be easier for other governments and authorities to compel Apple to reveal or give away their customers’ data. As indicated before, this is a breach of trust between the company and its clients who would have every right to act whichever way they please.
Clients take their privacy seriously and Cook would be committing a grievous business mistake if he agrees to breach the trust clients have towards Apple. People do various things with their phones and while they might be willing to share some things, they like the control they have over their privacy and information. If Apple takes this away from them, it would be breaching the trust these customers have...