The FBI... to aid or not to aid?
An individual’s privacy in the United States is protected by the Fourth Amendment, in which the “persons, houses, papers, and effects” of the people “shall not be violated”. With the advent of technology, however, the scope of the personal possessions of a person have expanded include digital property as well. The definition of a warrant, a right to access “the places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”, has thus been blurred by the ease of access to personal digital property. One main example of the debate over the right to exercise the Fourth Amendment comes from the seizure of technology in order to access information that could assist criminal investigations. Tech companies, although not obligated to assist in such investigations unless summoned by a subpoena, have the option to assist the government. This being said, however, there exists opposing stances on this action.
One prominent company that assists in government law enforcement is Best Buy. In a lawsuit filed by a man charged with possession of child pornography found by a Best Buy employee in a computer repair, it was found that Best Buy’s top officials have “‘enjoyed a particularly close relationship’” with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Farivar 1). While it is morally correct (and, in certain states, legally obligated) to report such findings to the appropriate authorities, questions arise the legality of the breaching of privacy by a private company. In this case, however, Best Buy requires consumers to consent to employees accessing private information and has stated the policy of reporting potential criminal activity to law enforcement. This, however, does not take away the customer’s fear of a potential breach in privacy.
The fear of data falling into the wrong hands is precisely the reason why others tech companies, such as Apple, refuses to comply with the government in similar scenarios. In the aftermath of the San Bernardino, California shootings, Apple refused to provide a tool to penetrate its encryption software to the FBI, preventing the FBI from accessing user data stored on the iPhone owned by the perpetrators of the attack. Apple stated that the violations of the First Amendment, such as the risk of the backdoor “[falling] into the wrong hands and [the threatening of] the privacy of all iPhone owners”, as well as the “dangerous precedent” that Apple would set, requiring companies to comply in criminal investigations, would in turn threaten the privacy of all individuals (Moser 1). Apple’s refusal has caused debate over the moral (or lack thereof) of this action, with some critics highlighting Apple’s “unpatriotic” act to “protect its own brand” (Moser 1). It does appear that fulfilling both moral and legal obligations in this case is difficult, and it seemed unavoidable that Apple decided to take a firm stance against the breaching of private user data.
In most cases, discerning the best action to take in such circumstances can be downright impossible, hence the backlash that both Best Buy and Apple have received for their respective actions. It may be best if companies can find a medium between the two stances, assisting criminal investigations without a complete breach of information; such solution, unfortunately, may be impossible to find for the foreseeable future.
Sources:
Farivar, Cyrus. “Best Buy Defends Practice of Informing FBI about Child Porn It Finds.” – Ars Technica, Ars Technica, 8 Mar. 2018, arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/best-buy-defends-practice-of-informing-fbi-about-child-porn-it-finds/?amp=1.
“The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy.” Ethics Unwrapped, ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/fbi-apple-security-vs-privacy.
One prominent company that assists in government law enforcement is Best Buy. In a lawsuit filed by a man charged with possession of child pornography found by a Best Buy employee in a computer repair, it was found that Best Buy’s top officials have “‘enjoyed a particularly close relationship’” with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Farivar 1). While it is morally correct (and, in certain states, legally obligated) to report such findings to the appropriate authorities, questions arise the legality of the breaching of privacy by a private company. In this case, however, Best Buy requires consumers to consent to employees accessing private information and has stated the policy of reporting potential criminal activity to law enforcement. This, however, does not take away the customer’s fear of a potential breach in privacy.
The fear of data falling into the wrong hands is precisely the reason why others tech companies, such as Apple, refuses to comply with the government in similar scenarios. In the aftermath of the San Bernardino, California shootings, Apple refused to provide a tool to penetrate its encryption software to the FBI, preventing the FBI from accessing user data stored on the iPhone owned by the perpetrators of the attack. Apple stated that the violations of the First Amendment, such as the risk of the backdoor “[falling] into the wrong hands and [the threatening of] the privacy of all iPhone owners”, as well as the “dangerous precedent” that Apple would set, requiring companies to comply in criminal investigations, would in turn threaten the privacy of all individuals (Moser 1). Apple’s refusal has caused debate over the moral (or lack thereof) of this action, with some critics highlighting Apple’s “unpatriotic” act to “protect its own brand” (Moser 1). It does appear that fulfilling both moral and legal obligations in this case is difficult, and it seemed unavoidable that Apple decided to take a firm stance against the breaching of private user data.
In most cases, discerning the best action to take in such circumstances can be downright impossible, hence the backlash that both Best Buy and Apple have received for their respective actions. It may be best if companies can find a medium between the two stances, assisting criminal investigations without a complete breach of information; such solution, unfortunately, may be impossible to find for the foreseeable future.
Sources:
Farivar, Cyrus. “Best Buy Defends Practice of Informing FBI about Child Porn It Finds.” – Ars Technica, Ars Technica, 8 Mar. 2018, arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/best-buy-defends-practice-of-informing-fbi-about-child-porn-it-finds/?amp=1.
“The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy.” Ethics Unwrapped, ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/fbi-apple-security-vs-privacy.
Comments
Post a Comment