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
Ryan Feenstra
1/27/2020 05:38:21 pm

I believe Apple is making the correct decision in keeping the back door closed. Although I also understand the reasons why many people would like to change that. Apple, in my eyes, is staying true to their company's name and keeping everyone's information private. Keeping the back door open can lead to consequences and it is smart to avoid them by keeping it closed. With the rise of technology, privacy is becoming more and more expensive and for Apple to stay true to their words and keep it private is a big deal moving forward. Their decision to keep the back door closed is mindful and will be more relevant as we move forward into the future.

Reply
Jeffrey Kline
1/27/2020 09:54:21 pm

Personally, I think that Apple should not add a back door into their phones. They should keep their products the same way they always have been. In tough times like terrorist attacks, having that backdoor into phones can be very vital to finding the terrorist's motives, but in some cases the FBI doesn't even get the info they need by hacking their way through the door. As big of a company that Apple is, I think that switching the makeup of their products to have a "backdoor" could really hurt their business. If people see that their privacy is all of a sudden threatened because of the new backdoor in iphones, that could really hurt Apple as a company. Privacy is becoming very hard to come by as time moves on. Therefore, I think it is a mindful marketing decision of Apple to keep the back door closed.

Reply
best tablets for comics link
2/16/2020 11:20:55 pm

Battery life and network frequency also become visible here. Black, raised buttons on the backlit keypad make it easy to see and dial

Reply
Caleb Weidner
1/28/2020 01:17:58 am

In my opinion, Apple needs to keep the backdoor closed and they are correct in doing so. The possibility that millions of users could be hacked and have information stolen if the backdoor is figured out by hackers is too much to risk just for trying to figure out a few more clues from a terrorist's or criminal's phone. Although it would be helpful, it is just not worth it to put many lives and careers at risk through this option.

Reply
Karis Owens
1/28/2020 04:23:02 pm

I do not think it would be wise for Apple to open a backdoor on their products. As technology advances, more people are switching to a greater online presence. In the past, technology was not as developed and therefore people rarely shared any personal information or used any electronic platform enough for any useful information to be collected. Recently, everyone is less reluctant to share their information than in the past because of the trust that large companies, such as Apple, have been growing. The careful handling of data and privacy has built up Apple’s reputation. That would be a lot to risk if Apple should agree to help out the government in exposing aspects of their highly advanced software. First, this would give the government the resources to possibly hack into anyone of Apple’s consumers, which is a majority of the country. Also, what is the point of giving in to the government's pressures to help them if they find a way of getting into the phones anyway, without Apple’s help. In my opinion, Apple should keep enforcing their values as a company to protect their customer’s privacy because if any scandal were to happen, it could result in the fall of their company.

Reply
Matthew Gordner
1/28/2020 04:37:14 pm

I agree that this is an example of mindful marketing from Apple. I believe that they are keeping its users safe by not allowing these back doors. If Apple allowed back doors for the government, then it is only a short time before others discover this technique to get into phones. With our increasing dependability on our phones for storing information, these entrances into phones could prove costly. Furthermore, if the government were to be hacked, then everybody's information would be available. If Apple were to comply with the demand of a back door, I believe many users would change their lifestyles by either exchanging their phone for a different model or by keeping less information on phones altogether. Therefore, I believe this decision creates shareholder value while maintaining societal values.

Reply
Justin Brubaker
1/28/2020 04:57:43 pm

In my opinion it would not be wise for Apple to open the backdoor for its technology. By doing this Apple is protecting people's rights to their own personal privacy, and by doing this they're creating a sense of security for all their customers. I understand on the other hand why some people would want to have them change their technology though, it would be very useful for the government in the case of a terrorist attack or upcoming terrorist attacks. But by doing this they'd be taking away people's rights to their own personal privacy and possibly even their own personal health. Therefore, I believe that Apple made the right decision to not open the backdoor to their technology.

Reply
Tanner Stern
1/28/2020 06:59:38 pm

I remember the incident from 2015. I must admit, I was skeptical of Apple's motives then. To me, it seemed that Apple was standing in the way of justice, unwilling to compromise the "security" of their product (which I interpreted as putting profits before people). My understanding of the situation was incorrect: I thought that Apple somehow was in possession of the information that the FBI was searching for, and did not want to hand it over. That's an entirely different conversation.

After reading this article, I can see that the issue is far more complex. I understand why Apple was hesitant to make a way in for "good guys," namely that doing so would be impossible without also making a way in for "bad guys." Additionally, big corporations are already mistrusted in the public to some extent for the same reasons governments are mistrusted, namely because of information gathering. A "cooperative effort" between Apple and the U.S. Government would not likely be cast in a positive light by the media.

However, I'd like to return to the issue of Apple holding information "hostage." If the U.S. Government were to use a warrant to get information from Apple's servers (the information they collect from consumers using their devices), would Apple honor that warrant? I certainly hope they would. If they did not, their "high road" of information security would be most hypocritical, I measure.

Reply
Dylan Wells
1/28/2020 08:00:51 pm

After reading Dr. Hagenbuch's post and the responses above, I would agree that Apple should not make alterations to their phones and products that would allow for easier entry. While it may benefit the FBI and government in some ways, I fail to see how it would reduce crime on a substantial level. In fact, after reading this post, it seems as though 'opening a backdoor' would do just the opposite. If Apple was to make these changes, hacking individual's private information may become easier. In a time in which hackers cost the nation billions of dollars annually and people are more concerned with privacy online than ever, it seems only right that Apple would be taking steps in aiding both of these concerns.

Reply
Rebekah Adams
1/28/2020 09:31:06 pm

I believe that Apple is making the right decision in not opening a back door for their iPhones. Doing so would create chaos among iPhone users because privacy is a topic that is not taken lightly. I also agree that even if they did open a back door, it wouldn't deter terrorism or eliminate crime. People like that are always going to find a way to accomplish what they want, and Apple making a change like this likely wouldn't phase them. I agree that this is mindful marketing for Apple because they are still sticking to what they believe and are not altering their products that could disrupt the success of their company.

Reply
Bryce Doane
1/28/2020 09:37:30 pm

As all of the comments above have said, I agree that Apple should maintain the privacy and security of their phones by keeping the "backdoor" closed. To me, the government can get all of the information they are looking for in an iPhone from other sources such as cell phone companies and web services. For Apple, if they were to allow this backdoor to be opened, it could also be exploited by either hackers or ex/corrupt government officials. Data privacy is one of the top issues in technology right now and proving that they maintain secure data allows Apple to continue their brand loyalty and keep customers happy by doing what is right.

Reply
Hannah Hope
1/28/2020 10:35:50 pm

I also agree that Apple should maintain their privacy policies because it would not do much to change them now. As the article described if they simply make a "back door" to unlock the conversations between possible terrorists then they will just find another way to communicate. Making a "back door" will not stop the crime that may be discussed on encrypted iPhones. In fact, it may make even more crime. Making an easier way to hack into phones is almost begging hackers all around the world to steal information that could possibly ruin someone's life. This is why I agree that if the security of the iPhone is that good it should stay that way.

Reply
Joshua Soliday
1/28/2020 11:31:22 pm

I believe that apple should maintain there privacy settings because as an individual I would not want anything to happen. Opening up the back door could lead to possible threats and can be a very dangerous thing in the end it actually opened. As someone who doesn't use Apple, I feel like this could end up in a disaster for many people.

Reply
Ruthanna Eckert
1/29/2020 12:37:19 am

Do I think that Apple should change all their privacy policies so the U.S. government can try to keep a bit more of a handle on crooks? No, I don't. If there was a way for Apple to do that without threatening the rights and privacy of all the non-crooks, I'd be all for it. This is similar to the gun control argument that is everywhere in the U.S. Do we get rid of all guns so a few less people might get killed by them, or do we risk being helpless in the face of governmental tyranny? They're a little different, granted, but the idea is still the same. Do we throw away our own personal safety and rights in an attempt to stop a select few bad guys? I don't believe that would be a good solution in either of the circumstances, so no, I don't think Apple should create a "backdoor".

Reply
Clayton Dimpsey
1/29/2020 01:09:02 am

I think Apple is making the right decision. Opening the backdoor would cause more problems than it would solve. Part of the appeal of owning an iPhone is that it is an extremely secure device. I feel as though changing their devices to allow them to be bypassed so easily would not only open the door for criminals but also hurt a company whose consumers want a secure device. I agree that Apple is making a mindful decision by refusing to create the backdoor so long as they really are responding to the government’s requests in the manner that they claim they are.

Reply
Nathan Clark
1/29/2020 10:56:16 am

I believe that Apple is doing the right thing by not allowing backdoor access into their phones. This is an example of mindful marketing especially because it is upholding the value of privacy for cellphone users. However, I do think in a situation of trying to find out who terrorists are communicating with, I think Apple could have unlocked the phone as a matter of security for others. I think that postmortem it is okay to access the phone of a terrorist. But I do understand that if Apple gives in to this scenario the FBI and other agencies will push the line even further so I understand Apple wanting to nip this in the bud.

Reply
Andrew W.
1/29/2020 11:07:09 am

I fully support Apple's decision not to crack open the phones for the FBI. Consumer internet privacy has become such a major issue in recent months and there are too many incidents of companies exploiting consumers information. Apple seems to be one of the few companies left that cares about consumer privacy. It is a breath of fresh air to see a company actually thinking and caring about the consumers as a whole and protecting them. The pendulum of consumer security i hope is starting to swing back in the way of everyone being protected online

Reply
Zach Zigarelli
1/29/2020 11:10:20 am

I believe that Apple is making the right call in these situations by being more closed of than other platforms. with regards to security, sure other companies have two factor authentication and other security measures, but in the end an open source can only be so safe. In Apples case, you hardly hear of macbooks or any of their other devices being hacked or broken into and that is because they have kept the door shut for so long, and it should stay that way. Now on the matters of national security in the cases of terrorist attacks or thwarted attempts, i believe that Apple should collaborate with the government on these matters. This does not mean necessarily showing the government how to do it because that could end with an egregious breach of privacy for later times, but rather cooperate with them under the terms that Apple doesn't disclose how they got into the phone but is still able to retrieve the information necessary for investigations. This way Apple still has its its methods kept a secret while still maintaining the good reputation of security and the government receives the information that was needed.

Reply
Manny Covington
1/29/2020 12:01:02 pm

I do not believe that Apple should add a backdoor to their phones. While I do believe that it could possibly reduce crime, I do not think that the amount of crime that would be stopped as a result would warrant the use of a backdoor. Personally after just getting an iPhone, I wouldn't want the government to be able to take advantage of the use of a backdoor.

Reply
Amanda Filby
2/25/2020 05:39:11 pm

I personally believe that Apple should not provide a backdoor for the FBI. I think that although it would be helpful for the government agencies, I think that if it got into the wrong hand many things could go very wrong. I also think that there are many privacy issues with allowing a company and government to be able to just break into one’s personal iPhone. I know that my iPhone has a nice amount of personal information that I would not like to be shared. I agree that giving the opportunity for unlocking the backdoor would increase the amount of unlawful behavior. I also think that more damage could happen to an individual with this possible access. I have a respect and a level of respect for our government; however, that does not mean that I want to give them access to my phone. The government already has a large amount of my personal information, I would be okay keeping my personal life out of the government’s hand. I respect and appreciate Apple’s decision to not give in on these issues. I think that it is important for Apple to help out in other ways, which they already do through giving data and making engineers available, I think that they are already doing enough to make sure they can stop awful crimes but also keeping privacy and security in their product.

Reply
Ryan Long
2/26/2020 01:22:54 pm

I agree with Apple and not allowing the FBI or any sort of government body to easily get into iPhones. It seems like Apple is more for their customers instead of the Government.
If Apple would allow the government to get into iPhones with some sort of software or weakening their security software, then criminals or anyone with the technology to do the same can get into your iPhone as well. Which in the end would cause more and more problems for Apple and their consumers. Also, another controversy with this is whether it would eliminate terrorist attacks or other sorts of crime in the world if this was available to the government. It would not do that in my opinion because the government would not get the terrorists iPhone until after the attack has already occurred. Also, another thing that was stated in the blog post was that criminals and terrorists would find other ways of communicating things back and forth if security of their iPhones would become weakened. Which also in the end would not cause anything to change. Another thing that I feel is a problem with Apple allowing the government to access people’s phones is having trust in the government as well. They could easily find information or There is really no positive factors coming from Apple allowing the FBI to unlock iPhones besides the fact that there is a chance they can find the motive or find people that could have also been a part of the attack. Other than that there is no clear positive reasons to allow the iPhone to have a back door.

Reply
Danny Sachoff
3/19/2020 05:26:23 pm

I personally believe that it was smart for apple not to provide a back door for the government because that would have sacrificed the privacy of their other users and given them a bad reputation with consumers. When first reading this blog, I thought it was absurd that apple didn't create a back door for the government to access this terrorists phone. But after more thought and context to this situation I began to think that apple was doing the right thing by not creating a back door. Ultimately apple has a greater responsibility to its consumers and the integrity of its product than the responsibility to the government in this situation. The government eventually was able to access the iPhone using their own means and it ended up not having any valuable information on it any ways. Its a good thing apple didn't create a back door to access this iPhones data.

Reply
Andrew Thomsic
3/21/2020 06:43:56 am

It is totally understandable that Apple does not want to have a back door for the FBI. Not having the back door really gives people the privacy and it really represents Apple company. The phrase “ there is no such thing as back door just for good guys” The phrase really caught my attention. Apple company wouldn’t open the back door just to save some good guys. It’s not enough people to open the back door for the FBI. This phrase really made me thought about how our society and how we view money so much. Apple keeping their privacy yes part of the reason that they have so much customers and their annual revenue continue to grow because of the privacy. For them thinking about making profit or lose customers, then they would rather not lose customers because of making money. I think the main reason they did not want to open the back door for the guys is because of money. However, they are not only trying to make money but they are also trying to keep the privacy of others so the privacy of others would not be hacked. I agree with Apple keeping their back door shut because keep in the back door open can cost so much more potential people to get hurt or be killed.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    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