Law vs privacy APPLE CORE
APRIL 2020 | MACFORMAT | 17companies that trade in your personal
location data, with opt-ins to sharing data
down 50% on what they were three years ago.
This suggests that Tim Cook’s insistence
that “privacy is a human right” really is a
guiding principle, not just a catchy slogan.
Unlike some of its rivals like Google and
Facebook, Apple’s business model does not
rely on it harvesting your personal data to
benefit the company’s bottom line, thus
allowing it to be much tougher on privacy.
While other companies may pay lip service
to privacy while never really being committed
to it, Apple can afford to block access to your
data because it makes money in other ways.
Apple has also claimed that weakening
encryption would only impact law-abiding
citizens. “Criminals and bad actors will still
encrypt, using tools that are readily available
to them,” the company said at the time of the
San Bernardino shooting. By watering down
Apple’s device security, innocent users
would be put at risk.
There’s also the argument that compelling
a company to weaken its own security would
set a dangerous precedent, the consequences
of which may not become apparent for many
years. If a government were to be granted its
request to have a backdoor installed on
iPhones, it may be able to use that example to
compel Apple to cooperate in other ways in
the future. Understandably, Apple is reluctant
for that to happen.
It really is a balancing act between
preventing crime and protecting your privacy.
Where others may lean heavily one way or
another, Apple tries to aid law enforcement
while also keeping your data safe.
The battles on the horizon
For now, this is an issue that looks incredibly
difficult to solve. Both Apple and law
enforcement officials appear deeply
entrenched in their positions, unwilling
to move or blink first. In the end, it seems
unlikely that Apple will have to bend to the
will of the US government. For one thing,
the government was unable to force Apple
to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone despite
exerting massive pressure on the company.
Apple was able to withstand that barrage,
and that would have given it confidence that
it can resist further attempts to compromise
its device security.
In fact, further clashes may be
unnecessary. There is a small but growing
market for devices that can be used by police
to hack into phones without the need for user
passwords. It’s thought that one of these
devices – the GrayKey box made by Israeli
firm Cellebrite – was used to resolve the San
Bernardino standoff. Elsewhere, it was
recently reported that police in Scotland are
apparently able to bypass phone encryption
using specialist equipment known as ‘cyber
kiosks’. Could devices like these bypass the
need for operating system backdoors in your
Apple devices, thereby resolving the impasse?
Apple disagrees, and doesn’t appear to
be taking these developments lying down;
although they don’t require the company
to weaken its own encryption, they still
represent a threat to iOS security. If they were
to fall into the wrong hands, they could be
used for any number of malign purposes.
Apple is not fighting against law
enforcement, it’s fighting against threats to
its users’ privacy, whether those weapons
are wielded by criminals or anyone else. The
data suggests Apple is a company that tries
hard to balance user security with fighting
crime. Both aspects are important, but
encryption and security cannot be
sacrificed if the risks are too great.macformat.com @macformatTreading a thin line >
Apple has at times received
criticism for complying with
government requests. In 2019, it
was revealed that Saudi Arabian
app Absher could be used to allow
men to track and restrict the
movement of women. Women’s
rights in Saudi Arabia are severely
limited in comparison to other
nations, and Apple was condemned
in some quarters for allowing an
app like Absher onto its App Store
in the first place.
After anti-government protests
in Hong Kong, at the request of the
Chinese authorities, Apple removed
several apps that covered the
events and notified protestors of
police presence. This drew sharp
criticism from supporters of the
protests, who accused Apple of
submitting to an authoritative
regime and stifling democraticefforts. The situation highlighted
the tightrope Apple sometimes
walks when it comes to acquiescing
to government requests – China is
hugely important for Apple, both
for its manufacturing clout and the
income it provides. Money talks,
and evidently not even a company
of Apple’s size can afford to hurt
its own bottom line.Compelling a
company to weaken
its own security
would set a
dangerous
precedent
Apple relies on manufacturing in China, and so
is reluctant to cross the Chinese government.