Question

read the critical thinking question：How should companies respond to government request to break their own security systems. Apple has had numerous requests from law enforcement to break into iPhones confiscated in criminal and terrorism cases. Can Apple be forced to provide a “backdoor” allowing government agencies to defeat the security they have designed into their products? and write a two page paper about this issue.

Answer 1

Data security is like a marathon that never ends. Data security developers work constantly to stay a step ahead of data thieves. Data thieves are always trying to catch up, and from time-to-time they succeed. If we as consumers want data security we can depend on, then it’s important that we allow security developers to continue moving forward so they can maintain a lead over data thieves.

Companies such as Apple have a right to design products that make it as difficult as possible for unauthorized persons to access users’ private information, and consumers have a right to buy these products. When consumers purchase insecure products they make themselves targets for identity theft. Once bad actors have access to your accounts they may be able to use your credit cards, pose as you while committing crimes -- even blackmail you. Governments that do not respect citizens’ right to privacy tend not to respect other basic rights. The Soviet Union recruited people to watch and report on neighbors, friends and even family members who expressed anti-government feelings.

The government claims it is only asking Apple to help it retrieve information from one iPhone. It also insists that doing this would not place an unreasonable burden on Apple. These are specious arguments.

The government’s motion is like asking a company that makes vaults to demonstrate that it can break into one of its own products. The designer of a specific model probably knows that model’s weaknesses and, therefore, the best strategy for cracking it open. But requiring the manufacturer to break into one of its own vaults increases the risk to customers who rely on the same model to protect their valuables and undermines the company’s business going forward. The burden is not the time and effort needed to crack open one vault, it’s the damage to the company’s reputation.

Law enforcement officials have been demanding that makers of encryption devices should be required to provide law enforcement and national security agencies the ability to decrypt secret communications enabled by their devices. They have observed that (outside of government) encryption tools are often used by criminals, terrorists and spies. However, their demand ignores the experience that criminals will obtain encryption tools illegally just as they obtain guns illegally. It also suggests that they see privacy as a privilege to be dispensed or withdrawn as the government pleases.

he government is being extremely arrogant about this case. It ridicules Apple’s position by calling it a "marketing strategy" -- as if Apple could not possibly have any legitimate concerns and is merely pulling a PR stunt. However, the government’s campaign to force Apple to develop a backdoor solution could also be dismissed as a "marketing strategy." It distracts attention from the government’s failure to detect a couple with connections to "other people of interest to the authorities."

Perhaps it’s time to recognize that protecting private information and detecting planned terrorist attacks are both legitimate crime prevention activities.