One Bad Apple

I’ve been away for a long time, because after all what’s the point of adding my voice to the chorus of WTF’s as Donald Trump bids to become America’s Sylvio Berlusconi and Mussolini rolled into one Clairol-dyed package?    

But there’s an issue that has me going enough to comment again, and it’s not politics, it’s business.  I remain astonished that so many political liberals can back Apple’s refusal to unlock its phones at the same time they’re cheering Bernie Sanders’ attacks on Wall Street, sharing their Occupy selfies, and cursing the Koch brothers.  When did Apple become the Little Guy fighting the good fight?  Apple is no DC bookstore trying to avoid giving Ken Starr Monica’s purchase list.  It’s one of the two biggest companies in the world, and it’s already been called on for numerous corporate abuses, from patent infringement to child labor.  But now they’re the heroic defenders of everyone’s privacy, which they and the rest of the tech sector have done more to compromise than the FBI or CIS ever dreamed of.

Well they’re not.  Look at their filing in the court case, which says much more about their real reasons than any Tim Cook blather about “chilling effects.”  Their grounds for not wanting to unlock the phone: it "could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand."  Its business, folks, and all Apple cares about is getting you to spend your money. 

They may be right.  Sales to ISIS, Al Qaeda, drug dealers and organized crime may well slip.  The use of so-called “burner” phones may well climb back up, now that Apple can’t offer them a lifetime guarantee on their current iPhone6.

But will 99% of us be more or less safe if iPhone wins?  I say we’ll be less safe as the rush to buy unbreakably encrypted phones among terrorists and plain vanilla criminals becomes a flood.

A good friend said to me recently that the iPhone debate is full of analogies, and none of them are perfect.  That’s probably true, but let me add two of my own.

First, do you believe that the danger to our right to privacy is too great to allow the government to regulate the tech industry to protect our society from possible attacks?  Then you should also believe that the danger to our right to self-defense is too great to allow the government to regulate the gun industry to protect our society from mass killings.  For me, no iPhone unbreakable encryption and no right to assault weapons go hand in hand.

Second, let’s imagine a historical analogy.  We’re in a war with a foreign power.  They have exceptionally effective encryption, so we don’t know where they’re going to attack next.  One of their encryption devices falls into our hands.  But it’s made by an international company, and the company, citing privacy and business concerns, refuses to help us unlock the device.  Our courts back the company, and the enemy’s attacks on our cities and commerce continue unabated.

Watch the The Imitation Game again – or don’t bother, because if Apple has its way my history tae is just current events.