I wrote this at the outbreak of the FBI vs Apple ‘San Bernardino’ Case, the article was recently published in full by Digital Marketing Magazine.
Extract: Over the next few years the ripples this stone has created will continue to spread, we’ll see the argument surrounding privacy and data rear its head again and again, as we allow more data-collecting devices into our lives and as adverts and services become more targeted. It goes beyond email and iPhones but with the advent of wearables and the Internet of Things we are creating new doorways into our personal lives, so maybe that backdoor is worth defending after all before a legal precedent is set.

Full Article:

In February the Twitter-verse exploded as Apple’s Tim Cook released a letter to their customers, denouncing the FBI’s request that they install a backdoor in iOS, and effectively give government agencies (and anyone else with the ‘key’) access to an individual’s iPhone and all the information therein.

As the dust settled, both sides were discussed in the context of ‘the San Bernardino Case’, where a husband and wife attacked a government office. The FBI hoped that an iPhone 5C in that case held fresh evidence.

It’s a tough one, with the FBI and US Governors claiming Apple puts terrorists before civilians, and Apple claiming to protect those self-same civilians’ rights.

“Apple chose to protect a dead Isis terrorist’s privacy over the security of the American people,” Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas wrote in a statement.

Since then the tit-for-tat between the FBI and Apple has escalated to include a 227-year-old law, the All Writs Act of 1789, which empowers judges to issue warrants and authorise seizures, as well as making unlikely bedfellows of FBI Director James Comey and China’s Public Security Minister Guo Shengkun, who are also pressuring Apple for access, with Comey claiming that Apple has previously shared data with other governments.

Craig Federighi, Apple’s SVP Software Engineering, stated recently:

“Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country’s government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow.”

All the talk of terrorists and backdoors, has almost overshadowed what began, for Apple, as a simple task: protect our USP. Protect our brand.

You see, in 2014 Apple quietly introduced new encryption protocols that effectively locked not only users but Apple themselves out of iOS devices protected by 4 Digit PIN , and furthermore protected the device from ‘brute force attacks’ by the phone deleting itself after 10 failed attempts.

This means that Apple not only promised to protect their customers’ information, but also prevented themselves being able to access it.

Tim Cook’s public response to the FBI has highlighted much more than the issue of government agencies’ requests for access to Apple customers’ information, it has also cast fresh light on how our data is used by many corporations.

As consumers we share our information daily, for instance banks and credit card companies share our data with credit bureaus as a matter of course but we still believe in a right to privacy of personal communications.

In a 2009 CNBC interview, Eric Schmidt, executive chairman & former CEO of Google, would have had us believe that “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

Surely that’s not the point though. Surely I should have the choice in what I share with the world? It also prompts a re-evaluation of what the term ‘private’ means to companies who profit from your data. These same ‘free service’ companies make their money by algorithms that ‘read’ and form trends and analytics based on message passed via their platforms, yet they define this as private. It’s strange to think that in a post-Snowden world we are still surprised by surveillance, be it by governments or brands, but it has sparked fresh conversation on the notion of what privacy
means in digital.

Over the next few years the ripples this stone has created will continue to spread, we’ll see the argument surrounding privacy and data rear its head again and again, as we allow more data-collecting devices into our lives and as adverts and services become more targeted. It goes beyond email and iPhones but with the advent of wearables and the Internet of Things we are creating new doorways into our personal lives, so maybe that backdoor is worth defending after all before a legal precedent is set.

Already in the wake of the Apple/FBI case, other Silicon Valley stalwarts Facebook, SnapChat and Google have reportedly responded with increased security protocol development. WhatsApp founder, Jan Koum, posted on his Facebook account: “Our freedom and our liberty are at stake.” The case has highlighted the importance of not only privacy & security, but the ownership of self – two things that customers clearly expect and brands must adhere to if they’re to survive.

 

By Martin Hollywood, Creative Technologist Lead at Razorfish London