What is “national security”? Given the nature of these forums, some might find it objectionable but I can think of no better examples: Soviet spies have infiltrated X, and they’re using Apple software to pass secrets back to Moscow on the Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator.
Is it even then a question of “should”? It’s really a matter of “they will, or else”.
Of course, such cases rarely come up anymore, if they ever did. Nowdays, it’s “dumbass terrorist already shot up a nightclub, died, and now the FEEBs want Apple to unlock their cellphone even though the threat is over”. Even supposing that the phone has pertinent information, and that they had accomplices still alive and planning more shootings… how is that a national security matter? Should the terrorists succeed, how is national security impacted? Will nukes rain down on Washington DC unless Apple cooperates? Will secret yakuza ninjas implode the US economy with well-timed stock manipulation?
Just the fact that it’s the FBI criminal division investigating says that it’s not a matter of national security. Maybe if it were their counter-intelligence unit (but then we’re back to the “it’s not a should but a they will or else” thing).
Here’s a thought: It’s not 1978 anymore. Corporations are so much more international than they were back then (and they were pretty international even then). If Apple should cooperate with the government of the United States to protect its national security, should it cooperate with France to protect France’s national security? If not, then why? And if they should, does that not hold true for all nations nowdays? Supposing that Apple is US-based, and loyalty to the US comes first, there still aren’t any officially recognized enemies (save perhaps North Korea) for whom they’d have to pick and choose. This means they have to cooperate with all nations on Earth, more or less equally, but to the detriment of none. Which then wraps around to “it’s all about terrorism” since those are the only enemies left that doesn’t pit one nation against another.
You’re really asking: Should technology companies rat out dissidents and troublemakers for governments that are irritated with these dissidents and troublemakers (because those people get labeled “terrorists” by their respective governments)? They will, because to do otherwise is to lose business advantage
What is “national security”? Given the nature of these forums, some might find it objectionable but I can think of no better examples: Soviet spies have infiltrated X, and they’re using Apple software to pass secrets back to Moscow on the Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator.
Is it even then a question of “should”? It’s really a matter of “they will, or else”.
Of course, such cases rarely come up anymore, if they ever did. Nowdays, it’s “dumbass terrorist already shot up a nightclub, died, and now the FEEBs want Apple to unlock their cellphone even though the threat is over”. Even supposing that the phone has pertinent information, and that they had accomplices still alive and planning more shootings… how is that a national security matter? Should the terrorists succeed, how is national security impacted? Will nukes rain down on Washington DC unless Apple cooperates? Will secret yakuza ninjas implode the US economy with well-timed stock manipulation?
Just the fact that it’s the FBI criminal division investigating says that it’s not a matter of national security. Maybe if it were their counter-intelligence unit (but then we’re back to the “it’s not a should but a they will or else” thing).
Here’s a thought: It’s not 1978 anymore. Corporations are so much more international than they were back then (and they were pretty international even then). If Apple should cooperate with the government of the United States to protect its national security, should it cooperate with France to protect France’s national security? If not, then why? And if they should, does that not hold true for all nations nowdays? Supposing that Apple is US-based, and loyalty to the US comes first, there still aren’t any officially recognized enemies (save perhaps North Korea) for whom they’d have to pick and choose. This means they have to cooperate with all nations on Earth, more or less equally, but to the detriment of none. Which then wraps around to “it’s all about terrorism” since those are the only enemies left that doesn’t pit one nation against another.
You’re really asking: Should technology companies rat out dissidents and troublemakers for governments that are irritated with these dissidents and troublemakers (because those people get labeled “terrorists” by their respective governments)? They will, because to do otherwise is to lose business advantage