A168-Apple V US Government Case Study

Running Head: APPLE V. US GOVERNMENT CASE STUDY

Apple v. US Government Case Study

Name

Institution Affiliation

12/15/2017

APPLE V. US GOVERNMENT CASE STUDY 2

Review of the case

After the terrorist attack in California in December the year 2015 where 14 people were

shot and others injured, the FBI was able to retrieve the phone of the suspects from their

residence. The phone's make was an iPhone 5c and it was locked but they needed to check

the information on the phone to help them with the investigations of the attack. The FBI

needed help from the phone manufacturer to help unlock the phone. iPhones are made in such

a way that if a person enters the wrong passcode more than ten times, it automatically erases

all the data inside the phone (Khamooshi, 2016). This is a security feature that is specifically

made to protect the privacy of the consumers.

Apple Inc was able to provide the investigators with the information on the phone that

was backed up in their systems but still, it became impossible to unlock the phone. After the

information provided was unable to unlock the phone, the FBI requested Apple to develop a

system that will allow the overriding of the ten trial limit. Considering that a four digit pin

could have up to 10000 possibilities, the 10 trial limit had to be removed so that the FBI

could try all the possible pin codes and unlock the phone (Tabrez, 2016).

Apple declined their request for designing a new software. They argued that the

government was suggesting to use the tool on only a single phone but they were lying, this is

because if Apple agreed to their demands to create this tool, it would be used severally on

different iPhone phones and also other phones of various makes. The tool would act as a

master key that is able to open varying locks (Khamooshi, 2016). Considering all this, they

argued that there is not a single reasonable person who would agree to such a request.

After their request was declined, the FBI went ahead and sued Apple Inc for failing to

assist in federal investigations. Apple argued that writing a new software to help unlock the

phone, was a violation of its First Amendment rights. The coding is like a speech and forcing

the company to write a new software is like forcing them to make a speech that they are not

APPLE V. US GOVERNMENT CASE STUDY 3

willing to make. Apple was not willing to open a backdoor that will eventually open doors to

cyber espionage (Tabrez, 2016). If they agreed to write such a software, there would be a

high likelihood of it falling into the wrong hands and their clients' data would no longer be

safe. Also by agreeing to these requests, it would mean that they no longer have the power to

decline such requests in the future event and the brand would then be ruined.

In one of his statements, the CEO of Apple Inc brought up a debate on the need to

maintain balance on the national security and protecting the privacy of the users. Supported

by other techno giants like Google and the Facebook Inc, they too argued that the order by

the court was a threat to the privacy of people. If the software lands into the wrong hands,

then it would create a threat to all iPhone users and more so, it would set a very dangerous

precedent. By rejecting this request, the manufacturer was accused of being unpatriotic and

only being interested in protecting the brand. The case was later dropped by the FBI after

finding their own way of unlocking the phone without the Apple's assistance (Benner &

Lichtblau, 2016).

The stakeholders in the case

The success of Apple has been brought about by the company's ability to take care of

the needs of its stakeholders and its corporate social responsibility (Thompson, 2017). The

major stakeholders of Apple Inc are the customers, the company's employees, investors and

the distributors and suppliers of the products. Everything that the company produces, puts

into consideration the interests of these stakeholders. In the case against the government, it

also affected these stakeholders.

The reason why the iPhone was built with the kind of encryption that the FBI was

trying to unlock is so as to offer the clients privacy. The manufacturer specifically installed

that kind of a software into the phones so as to offer privacy to the consumers of their

products. People prefer to purchase iPhone because it is secure and they are assured their

APPLE V. US GOVERNMENT CASE STUDY 4

information will be protected. Now, for the government to ask the manufacturer to write

another software that can allow them to unlock the iPhone, it is against the consumer's

expectation on the company (Thompson, 2017). Regardless of this issue, it was trying to

solve, opening such a backdoor would mean that the consumers' data was no longer secure

and anyone could access it. Therefore the decision by Apple to decline this request was a way

of protecting their relationship with the consumers. It was a way of assuring them that they

are committed to offering them secure products no matter what. If the company had agreed to

write the code, it would have tarnished the name of the brand. Apple is a brand that is

recognized in all parts of the world, and if it had allowed the privacy of its users to become

compromised, it would have lost a lot of clients in the market.

The other stakeholder who was affected by this case was the investor. Apple has been

recognized in the entire world as the most valuable company that is publically traded. Its

shares in the market have been performing outstandingly well and this is because of the

strength of the brand (Thompson, 2017). The reputation of a brand is key to the investor's

decision to invest in it, this is why the company stood its ground on the case by declining the

request of the FBI. It is true that the company was protecting its brand as argued by the

plaintiff in the case. The company was protecting its brand because if it happened no to, then

the investors would start losing faith in the brand. This means withdrawing their investment

which could cause the prices of its share to dip and the company would make immense

losses.

The case was also affecting the distributors and the suppliers. If the company had

accepted the requests of the FBI, it would mean losing consumers since not many people

appreciate their information being spied on (Mintz, 2016). This would mean losing demand

for its products and therefore the distributors and suppliers would have reduced demand for

the Apple products. The case was also touching on the employees, they would be losing the

APPLE V. US GOVERNMENT CASE STUDY 5

priceless value of the effort they had put into creating highly secure products if they agreed to

design the software.

The technical problem of the case

The technical issue in the case is that the encryption on the iPhone was hindering the

FBI from accessing the data on the terrorist's phone. If the FBI tried more than ten incorrect

passcodes, the phone would automatically delete all its data (Thompson, 2017). Therefore the

government was requesting for the Apple to write another software that would allow them to

try as many passwords on the phone until they were able to unlock without the worry of

losing the information in the phone.

Apart from maintaining the trust it has with the clients, the manufacturer refused to

offer the government what it was looking for because it would have been impossible to

develop a tool for that specific phone only (Thompson, 2017). If they developed the software,

it would mean that the government can access data on any iPhone phone and the privacy that

the Apple products offer will be list entirely.

Ethical and social issues in the case

According to Mintz (2016), the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook said the following after the

order from the judge, "Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must

speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the US Government. We are

challenging the FBI's demands with the deepest respect for the American democracy and a

love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and

consider the implications. While we believe the FBI's intentions are good, it would be wrong

for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear

that this demand would undermine the freedoms and liberty our government is meant to

protect."

APPLE V. US GOVERNMENT CASE STUDY 6

The statement sums up the ethical dilemma in this case. The company owes it to its

clients to protect their privacy and but also there is the moral judgment of the case that if they

unlock the phone, they might prevent another attack from happening. Some may argue that

by refusing to cooperate, it shows that the manufacturer does not value human life. Those

directly affected by the attack were angry that the company was able to help the authorities to

catch the terrorists yet it was choosing not to (Benner & Lichtblau, 2016).

Considering that the company is committed to serving its stakeholders, its loyalty

lies with them and not the government. Considering its commitment and the people the

company is committed to serving, the ethical decision is definitely supposed to be the one

that protects its stakeholders since that is where its responsibilities lie. It would have been

unethical if Apple went contrary to what it had promised its clients. Opening a backdoor for

the government would have meant violating its promises to the people it has dedicated to

serving (Mintz, 2016).

The decision by the Apple was in respect to the principle of justice that advocates for

providing unto others what they are owed. The company owes the clients protection for their

data by offering highly secured products. Actions that are contrary to the promise are a

violation of this principle. The company does not owe the government anything even if their

intentions are good (Khamooshi, 2016)d. The priority of the business is the clients and the

investors before anyone else. The actions were also in obedience to the principle of non-

malevolence which advocates for actions that are not meant to cause any harm. The decision

not open a backdoor in their systems is a way of protecting their consumers from the harm

that might befall them in case that software lands on the wrong people (Mintz, 2016).

Information that people store on their phones is very sensitive and it might harm the owner if

it is accessed by the wrong person who can use it for wrong reasons.

APPLE V. US GOVERNMENT CASE STUDY 7

The issue of noncompliance however brings about social issues. With a problem

such as terrorism, the society may fail to understand the action of Apple (Mintz, 2016). The

government has the responsibility of protecting its people and in it can only do that if it is

able to get the necessary assistance from various industries in the society. By checking the

data on the phone, they are able to know the plans of the terrorists and be able to prevent the

possible planned attacks. Therefore looking at the decision by the Apple to decline the FBI's

request from the society's point of view, then it was not the best decision.

Recommendation

Based on the ethical analyses, the company did what it was supposed to do. The

expectations of the customer are to get a phone that is able to offer them privacy from any

form of intrusion may it be the government or any other party. The government was not

supposed to put the company in such an awkward position where it has to choose between the

people it serves and the country on which it is built on. It was very noble of the management

to stand their ground and protect the rights of the customers (Tabrez, 2016). Considering that

the FBI eventually dropped the case, it shows that they had not fully exhausted all the ways

of retrieving the data from the phone. Moving forward, they should first look for avenues that

do not raise unnecessary attention in solving issues.

Also in order to avoid such situations in the future, since Apple is well endowed with

resources, it can develop products where only them are able to retrieve the information that

they require, this way they will able to offer assistance when needed but in doing so, they will

be in control of how and what information is acquired instead of giving the software to a third

party to use it in accessing the information (Khamooshi, 2016). This way there is no risk of it

falling into the wrong hands or being used further to spy on unsuspecting customers.

APPLE V. US GOVERNMENT CASE STUDY 8

References

Benner, K., & Lichtblau, E. (2016, March). The U.S. Says It Has Unlocked iPhone Without

Apple. Retrieved December 2017, from www.nytimes.com:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/technology/apple-iphone-fbi-justice-

department-case.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-h

eading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Khamooshi, A. (2016, March). Breaking Down Apple’s iPhone Fight With the U.S.

Government. Retrieved December 2017, from www.nytimes.com:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/03/technology/apple-iphone-fbi-fight-

explained.html

Mintz, S. (2016, January). The Ethics of Allowing the US Government Access to Terrorist's

iPhone. Retrieved December 2017, from www.ethicssage.com:

http://www.ethicssage.com/2016/03/the-ethics-of-allowing-the-us-government-

access-to-terrorists-iphone.html

Tabrez, H. (2016, April). Case study: Apple vs FBI. Retrieved December 2017, from

gulfnews.com: http://gulfnews.com/your-say/your-reports/case-study-apple-vs-fbi-

1.1715381

Thompson, A. (2017, January). Apple Inc. Stakeholders: A CSR Analysis. Retrieved

December 2017, from panmore.com: http://panmore.com/apple-inc-stakeholders-csr-

analysis

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."