LIMITS ON SECURING

DIGITAL PRIVACY
ENCRYPTION DEBATE: APPLE
VS FBI CASE
ETHICS, GOVERNANCE AND BUSINESS LAW
 AGENDA
01 02 03
Historical Context Apple’s Encription The FBI Request
Technology

04 05
Ethical, Legal and Conclusion
Government issues
San Bernardino Shooting (December 2,
2015):

Terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

14 people were killed, 22 injured.

iPhones of the Perpetrators:

iPhones belonging to the attackers, Syed Rizwan
Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
Crucial evidence possibly stored on the devices.

FBI's Request for Assistance (February 16,

2016) :
FBI requests Apple's help to unlock the iPhones.
Specifically, to disable auto-erase and allow unlimited
passcode attempts
Apple's Initial Cooperation:
Apple provides data backed up to iCloud.
Refuses to create a custom operating system to
bypass iPhone security.

Legal Battle Begins:

FBI obtains a court order under the All Writs Act.
Apple challenges the order, citing privacy concerns
and potential precedent.

Withdrawal of Legal Action (March 28, 2016):

FBI drops the case after reportedly unlocking the
iPhone with third-party assistance.
User Privacy as a Core Value
Apple places a strong emphasis
on user privacy as one of its
foundational principles.
Privacy is considered a
fundamental right of Apple users.
Device-Centric Security Approach:
Apple prioritizes securing data on
individual devices through robust
encryption methods.
Device encryption safeguards user
information, including personal and
sensitive data, from unauthorized
access.
Constant Innovation in Security
Measures:
Apple consistently invests in research
and development to enhance its
security features.
Regular updates and innovations are
introduced to address emerging
security challenges and protect user
data.

Each iPhone has a unique identifier, and
the FBI sought assistance to bypass or
disable security features tied to this
identifier.
The request included enabling unlimited
passcode attempts to facilitate the FBI's
efforts to manually enter passcodes and
access the data.
The FBI requested Apple's assistance in
Objective of the unlocking iPhones associated with the
Request San Bernardino terrorist attack, as they
were protected by strong encryption.
Unique Device
Identifier
The FBI asked Apple to disable the auto-
erase feature, which wipes the device's data
Auto-erase feature after a certain number of unsuccessful
passcode attempts.
Unlimited Password
Attempts
The FBI requested Apple to create a
Custom Operating custom operating system that would
System bypass certain security features,
allowing for quicker and more efficient
access to the iPhones' data.
 Apple refused to create a custom operating
Refusal to create a system that could potentially compromise the
Backdoor security of all iPhones.

Apple challenged the court order obtained by

the FBI, arguing that such a request exceeded
Legal Challenge
the government's authority and affected user
privacy
Apple emphasized the importance of
Technology and maintaining the security of its devices and
User Security protecting user data from potential threats.

When the FBI announced that it had

obtained assistance from a third party to Third-Party
unlock the iPhones, Apple highlighted the Assistance
potential security risks associated with
undisclosed vulnerabilities. Apple was concerned that complying
Concerns about with the request might establish a risky
precedents precedent, opening the door to more
government requests for similar
assistance in the future.
01 FBI’s Perspective

02 Concerns about Apple’s Refusal

03 Risks and Challenges

04 Ethical Dillema
ETHICAL ISSUES
FBI's Perspective:
Devices may contain crucial communication records for
preventing future terrorist attacks.
Past criminal cases highlight criminals benefit from strong
encryption systems for unethical acts.

Concerns About Apple's Refusal:

FBI worries non-cooperation can encourage the perpetuation of
futural criminal activities.
Hesitancy to cooperate is viewed ethically as a potential
disregard for victims.
ETHICAL ISSUES
Risks and Challenges:
Puts customer information at risk of unauthorized access and
misuse
Concerns about establishing a dangerous precedent for creating
a custom operating system.

Ethical Dillema:
Concerns about establishing a dangerous precedent for creating
a custom operating system.
Raises the question of compromising long-term user privacy for
crucial information in enhancing public safety.
01 Legislative Guidance and All-Writs Act

02 Apple’s Argument against AWA use

03 Fourth Amendment Protection

04 Compelled Speech and First Amendment

Concerns

Government regulation and privacy

05 concerns

06 Balancing Justice and Privacy

LEGAL ISSUES

Legislative Guidance and All-Writs Act:

The absence of legislative guidance on encryption intensifies the debate.
Court order compelled by the All-Writs Act raises concerns about its applicability in
modern technology and privacy contexts.

Apple Argument Against AWA Use:

Apple argues AWA use could introduce vulnerabilities, posing lasting risks.
Creating a custom operating system for the FBI may compromise encryption barriers
and user data security.
LEGAL ISSUES
Fourth Amendment Protection:
Apple argues developing an iPhone backdoor infringes on consumers' Fourth
Amendment right to privacy.
Courts, including the Supreme Court, recognize the Fourth Amendment's protection for
mobile phone data, emphasizing individuals' 'expectation of privacy.'

Compelled Speech and First Amendment Concerns:

Forcing Apple to develop a software tool raises concerns about freedom of speech
under the First Amendment.
Reflection on the limits of government compulsion in technology and expression,
considering First Amendment protections.
LEGAL ISSUES
Government Regulation and Privacy Concerns:
Questions arise about the government's role in formulating regulations for
user privacy in the tech industry.
Concerns about intrusive measures, like compelling Apple to create
surveillance software, may risk creating exploitable vulnerabilities.

Balancing Justice and Privacy:

Challenging task of reconciling justice pursuit with individual privacy through
careful legal measures.
Focus on defining legal limits and balancing national security interests with
individual rights.
01 Challenges in Legislation

02 Corporate Role in Privacy

03 Global Implications

04 Dillema in Cooperations
GOVERNANCE
ISSUES
Challenges in Legislation
Drafting legislation for the evolving cyberworld is challenging.
Balancing privacy protection with technological innovation poses difficulties.
Laws need constant updates to address new threats and advancements.

Corporate Role in Privacy

Clear and transparent privacy policies are crucial for maintaining public trust.
CEO Tim Cook highlighted potential damage to Apple's reputation from creating
iPhone vulnerabilities- mistrust from consumers
Raises the question of government intervention versus corporations protecting
customer databases.
GOVERNANCE
ISSUES
Global Implications
The case may set a global precedent for governments making similar
demands in the tech innovation context.
Implications extend beyond the U.S., influencing how other governments
approach technology-related privacy issues.

Dillema in Cooperation
Balancing cooperation between tech companies and law enforcement is complex.
Collaboration is crucial for addressing security threats and ensuring timely access to
relevant information.
Sensitivity to individual privacy rights is essential to avoid overreach and maintain
public trust.
UTILITARIANISM, PATERNALISM AND
LIBERTARIANISM
Utilitarianism suggests evaluating the dilemma
based on the overall happiness derived from
either protecting user privacy or enabling the
breakage of encryption for public safety.

Due to Apple's innovative background,

predicting outcomes of siding with either
party is challenging, creating uncertainty in the
utilitarian analysis.

Utilitarians might argue that granting the FBI

access contributes to public safety by
preventing crimes like shootings, human
trafficking, and organized crime, thereby
maximizing overall happiness.
Utilitarians could recognize that compromising
customer privacy, as argued by Apple, might
negatively impact the happiness of millions
of iPhone users, countering the potential
benefits of preventing specific crimes.

The utilitarian analysis faces complexities in

weighing the benefits of crime prevention
against the potential harm to privacy,
especially considering the lack of empirical
data on widespread privacy breaches.
Libertarians oppose government intervention
and support a Minimal State, viewing the FBI's
request as potentially granting excessive power

Libertarians believe in upholding property

rights, arguing that a private company like
Apple should not be compelled by the
government to modify its products.

Trusting the free market is essential, allowing

customers to express their preferences for
privacy and security.
Any government action that restricts personal
liberty, like the FBI's request, is seen as an
infringement on self-ownership.

Government demands for citizens' personal

data from Apple are viewed as violating
libertarian principles by infringing on
individual freedom and privacy.
Paternalism often involves the government
assuming authority in privacy and security
matters, aiming to protect citizens.

Both Apple and the FBI play the role of

'parent' in their respective domains but act as
the 'child' in the other's. This complicates
decision-making in a paternalistic model where
a singular 'parent' figure is ideal.
One might argue that Apple, as the encryption
system creator, understands potential
weaknesses, making it best suited to prioritize
user privacy by resisting the government's
order.

On the other hand, a paternalistic view might

support the FBI's need for a backdoor,
emphasizing the government's superior
understanding of national security needs over
Apple's technological innovation priorities.