If the FBI has a “pain in the neck” list, chances are Apple CEO Tim Cook woke up Wednesday morning owning the top spot. What earned him that distinction? Well, you see, he’s guilty of doing what irks federal agencies and bureaucrats more than anything else. He said “no.”
Saying “no” to the FBI is nothing new. Individuals and businesses try to push back against government entities all the time. What makes Cook different is that he’s the head of an organization that is big enough, popular enough and wealthy enough to push back with force.
You’re probably familiar with the back story:
Throughout its investigation of December’s San Bernardino terror attack, the FBI hasn’t been able to hack into deceased gunman Sayed Farook’s iPhone. Only Farook knew the device’s passcode, and without gaining access to the phone’s contents the FBI is worried valuable insights into the massacre are missing. Frustrated by running into a technological dead-end, the bureau petitioned U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, urging her to make Apple help it work around the iPhone security mechanism. Pym, a former federal prosecutor, complied.
Shortly after Pym issued a court order obligating Apple to cooperate with investigators, Cook blasted out a letter to customers presenting his grounds for resisting the wishes of the FBI. His primary arguments are that (1) Apple doesn’t currently have the technology to compromise the iPhone encryption program – “that data (is) out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business,” and (2) if Apple did manufacture a tool for this request, doing so would potentially endanger the privacy rights of countless iPhone users. Essentially, he says, they’d be creating a “master key,” which could be used to unlock millions of devices.
Cook wrote, “This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.” He’s gotten his wish. Since Apple is a widely beloved brand, he’s stimulated millions of conversations by drawing attention to this case.
But while most commentary around this matter has centered on privacy, I’ve also wondered how the heck a court, on behalf of the federal government, can command a business to create a product. Over the past few years, we’ve witnessed the government force individuals to buy health insurance and require bakers to decorate cakes they’d rather not. This one, though, it’s a new one to me.
Imagine working in a creative industry, and one day a court order is plopped on your desk demanding you build something, that you’ve never specifically made, for a government entity. You’d respond with something like, “Um, that thing doesn’t exist.” To which this particular directive would say, “Yeah, but you’ve whipped up something similar in the past, and we know you have the resources to build what we want. Do it, or go to jail.”
If that doesn’t send shivers down your spine, then Kim Jong-un has a business park with your name on it. Even more unsettling, however, is the likelihood that had this dispute involved a company (or individual) with less clout than Apple, there’s a good chance we wouldn’t have heard about it.
When Tim Cook sneezes, the media rushes to report on what his sneeze might mean for Apple stock values. Naturally then, when he takes a stand like he has against the FBI, most of America tunes in. And by tuning in, we’ve once again been reminded how desperately vulnerable we are as private citizens of this republic.
So thank you, Tim Cook. We needed this jolt.
Contact David Allen Martin at davidallenmartin423@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @DMart423.