Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Should Apple Open a Backdoor?

1/25/2020

23 Comments

 
Apple Backdoor

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Imagine that someone you know is coming to your home, but you’re not able to let them in, so you tell them, “I’ll leave the backdoor open.”  Of course, doing so means that anyone else, with good intentions or bad, can easily enter.  To help fight crime, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has again asked the world’s most iconic tech company to ‘open a backdoor’ on its smartphones.  Shouldn’t Apple finally oblige?
 
On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire at a holiday party in the Inland Regional Center of San Bernardino, CA, killing fourteen people and injuring 22 others.  Because both terrorists died in a shootout with police, law enforcement was left wanting to know more about what motivated the attack and whether there were accomplices.  So, the investigation turned to Farook’s locked iPhone:
 
“Agents wanted Apple to write a new operating system that would bypass the 10-attempt limit on the security code and other security measures.  With this done, agents then planned to use a computer program to churn through the 10,000 possible passcodes until they hit upon the right one.”
 
Apple cooperated in other ways e.g., making engineers available, providing data, and trying to unlock the phone, but it refused the request to create a “backdoor,” to its phones, citing concerns over consumer security and privacy, as well as the precedent that such a concession would create.
 
Eventually, the FBI was able to gain access to the inside of Farook’s phone.  The Bureau didn’t say how, but reports circulated that it paid Cellebrite, an Israeli forensics company $900K to hack into the device.  In the end, however, “the FBI didn’t find any information they didn’t already have.”
 
Fast forward to the present, and we see how history often tragically repeats itself.  Almost exactly four years after the San Bernardino shootings, Mohammed Saeed Alshamran, a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force, opened fire at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, FL, killing three U.S. sailors and wounding eight others.  Once again, the terrorist died in the attack, leaving behind two locked iPhones that the FBI can’t crack.  U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr has explained the need to access the phones’ contents:

“It’s very important for us to know with whom and about what the shooter was communicating before he died.  This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that investigators be able to get access to digital evidence once they have obtained a court order based on probable cause.”
 

Terrorist's two iPhones

Again, Apple has refused to acquiesce and build a backdoor to its phones.  Barr has claimed that the company has offered “no substantive assistance” in the investigation.  However, Apple, has rejected that characterization, saying “Our responses to their many requests since the attack have been timely, thorough and are ongoing.”
 
So, why isn’t the intelligence and security service of one of the world’s superpowers simply able to hack into a few smartphones?  The most likely answer is that the data encryption, which Apple improved significantly with the introduction of iOS 8, is that good.  Other explanations for the inaction are that “the FBI simply doesn’t understand (or won’t accept) Apple’s inability to help,” which had led to “Attorney General Barr’s larger anti-encryption push.”
 
Notwithstanding concern for citizens’ safety, and perhaps even national security, in terms of marketing’s 4 Ps, Apple’s backdoor decision has profound impact for its “product,” i.e., the value users derive from owning very securely-encrypted iPhones and the company’s ability to continue to sell smartphones to those consumers.
 
No one wants his/her phone to be hacked, just ask Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, but does such personal protection outweigh a nation’s ability to fight terrorism and other crime?  Clearly, the issue is complicated.  Here are three related questions to consider:
 
  1. Would a backdoor mean less crime?  Some may accuse Apple of averting justice by not providing an easy unlock for its phones, but less iPhone security could easily lead to more unlawful behavior.  Although subsequent hacking would probably more often involve nonviolent crime like bank fraud and identity theft, there’s also reason to believe that users’ physical safety could be at risk by virtue of address information, GPS locations, and smart home apps found on many people’s phones.
  2. Would more easily-unlocked iPhones deter terrorism?  Like most things in life, crime probably takes the path of least resistance.  If one phone becomes easy for ‘the Feds’ to unlock, criminals will likely switch to another, and if every phone proves vulnerable, they’ll find other forms of communication.  Also, if law enforcement is mainly accessing terrorists’ phones after the fact, they’ll just be more diligent in destroying them.
  3. Can governments be trusted?  Although some individuals around the world and in the U.S. would answer this question emphatically, ‘No,’ most people appear to have a fair amount of faith in their local, state, and national officials.  However, trusting anyone doesn’t necessarily mean giving them access to information or other sources of power that could prove too tempting to resist using unscrupulously.  The founders of this country certainly had this principle in mind as often evidenced by various directives in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

Unfortunately, any one of us or a loved one might become the next victim of terrorism or another criminal act, possibly committed with the aid of an iPhone.  However, providing easier access to the information inside our smartphones doesn’t appear to be a way of reducing that risk.  In fact, such entry would likely introduce many more issues ranging from invasion of privacy to physical harm.
 
As the introduction of this blog post suggested and Apple affirms, “there is no such thing as a backdoor just for good guys.”  If a smartphone maker creates one, it enables access to its users’ lives by anyone who can locate that entry point.  By resisting pressure to comply and keeping its phones securely-encrypted, Apple engages in “Mindful Marketing.”
 

Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
23 Comments

Fighting Fire with Desire

1/12/2020

7 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods—natural disasters are unfortunate reminders of how powerful earth is and how weak humans are.  Yet, in the wake of such tragedies it’s encouraging to see caring people help others in need.  So why has one woman’s philanthropy aimed at fire relief for Australia sparked a media firestorm?
 
Since late July, “Australia is [still] being ravaged by the worst wildfires seen in decades.”  A terrible drought and record-high temperatures are helping fuel the horrific flames.  So far, the tragic toll includes 27 people dead, over 2,000 homes destroyed just in the state of New South Wales, smoke 11-times the hazard level in Sydney, more than 17.9 million acres of land burned, and millions of animals likely dead.
 
Thankfully there are organizations and individuals responding to the tragedy.  One of those people is Kaylen Ward.  An attractive 20-year model from Los Angeles, Ward tweeted a promise on January 3 to send a picture of herself to anyone who sent her proof of a donation of $10 or more to a legitimate fire relief organization such as the Australian Red Cross or Salvation Army Australia.  Ward kept her promise, and within four days, her efforts helped raise an amazing $1 million!
 
Why has Ward’s work been so successful and controversial? It was because she wasn’t wearing anything in the photos; Ward was nude.
 
The people receiving the pictures, weren’t surprised—they got exactly what Ward promised and what might be expected from an “influencer and sex worker” who makes a living from nakedness, often by selling nude photos and videos of herself on OnlyFans.  Recently, she’s come to call herself “The Naked Philanthropist.”
 
One reason people have taken issue with Ward’s promotion of wildfire relief was a perception that she must somehow be skimming money off the top for herself.  However, she quickly clapped back at such allegations, tweeting that “none of the donation money to Australia has or ever will go to me. The only money I have made is money from my [Only]fans. I guarantee I am not pocketing any donation money.”
 
Given that people donated directly to the relief organizations and just direct messaged Ward copies of receipts, she had no access to the money.  In contrast, Ward apparently incurred some direct costs from her philanthropy.  After her initial tweet went viral (over 88K retweets and more than 226K likes), she said she had to hire four people to help her sort through all of the messages, verify the donations, and send out over 10,000 nude photos.
 
It’s likely, though, that whatever those cost were, they were more than offset by all the free media ‘exposure’ (sorry) she’s received, probably worth at least tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention the contact list of future customers she undoubtedly built from all those who direct messaged her for a free pic.
 
Likewise, Ward’s social media following exploded.  Before her first ‘fire relief post’ she had about 176K Twitter followers.  She now has over 387K.
 
Knowing those positive personal outcomes, some may argue that her philanthropy was intentionally self-serving.  Ward takes issue with that assessment, however, saying that she had seen the impact of the recent California fires firsthand and knows “how devasting” they can be.
 
Also, soon after stopping her nude photos promotion, Ward started a GoFundMe campaign aimed at raising money for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and the World Wildlife Fund.  She stated:  “I want to continue raising funds to save the people and animals of Australia,” because the causes are “very important to me.”
 
It’s hard to judge motives.  There’s also not necessarily anything wrong with a person wanting both to help others and to advance his/her own career.  Many forward-thinking organizations take a similar strategic approach to their philanthropy such that they do well financially while doing good socially.
 
But, then there’s the specific nature of Ward’s career.  It’s pornography. 
 
Many individuals and organizations believe that there are standards of decency that should be upheld, including ones involving sexual explicitness.  Facebook, which owns Instagram, is one of those organizations:  It disabled Ward’s Instagram account because she apparently violated the site’s prohibition of offering nude images.
 

Picture

 Some may say, though, that the means justify the ends, i.e., given the devastation Australia has endured, ‘baring’ oneself is acceptable in order to provide relief to those in need.  Such an argument usually stems from a belief in consequentialism, or that the greatest net happiness is what determines whether an action is ethical, not freestanding moral principles like decency, dignity, and decorum.
 
But, if one considers consequences, there’s a need to look at all the consequences likely to come from Ward sharing her nakedness.  Those include consequences associated with pornography.  Here are several of the negative outcomes that individuals often experience from using porn, provided by Caron Andrews:
  1. Changes the brain:  Through the release of dopamine each time, the brain requires more and more porn.
  2. Affects behavior:  Porn users often have more violent attitudes toward women and exhibit more domineering and harassing behavior toward them.
  3. Leads to sexual dysfunction:  Actual physical intimacy becomes less stimulating.
  4. Harms one’s sense of sexuality:  Porn can cause people to have deviant and even dangerous sexual tastes.
  5. Stunts real-life relationships:  Users often draw away from others and keep secrets from them.
  6. Teaches that women are sexual objects:  Women are often ‘stripped’ of dignity and presented as vehicles for men’s sexual satisfaction.
  7.  Makes people feel bad about themselves:  The lack of congruity between one’s values and actions causes stress and feelings of hypocrisy.
  8. Changes moods:  People who use porn are often easily annoyed, angered, and depressed.
 
The preceding list isn’t comprehensive.  Besides negative impacts on individual users and those close to them, some suggest that pornography carries a major economic price: $16.9 billion a year in lost productivity.
 
Again, it’s impossible to know Ward’s true motivation, but even if she really did mean well, her philanthropic approach was greatly misguided.  The nude photos probably pleased their recipients and the corresponding donations likely helped ease Australia’s pain, but Ward discarded basic decency while fueling the flames of a terrible social problem, which makes her work “Single-Minded Marketing.” 


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
7 Comments
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly