Search form

Comment (1)


Joe Jones (not verified) March 29, 2016

I am wondering if we could make another analogy. Indeed, technology allowing to access people's iphones (and more generally their private data) would not be used only by instances such as the FBI, but also by criminals, that at some point would manage to create the same sort of software. Therefore, even if the FBI using the skills of an external actor causes risks for security by compromising individuals' privacy, would it not be better to have governments developing this technology before criminals do? Whether further developments of the case lead to a situation of anarchy (with companies such as Apple working on their encryption while FBI etc work on decryption), or to a new social contract with legal agreements, criminals would still be able to develop decryption technologies too and to access data, occasioning big security problems (especially when we think about terrorism). This situation makes me think about the decision of Einstein, together with other physicians, to work on the atomic bomb with the goal to develop it before the nazis. Apple’s role could be linked to these physicians and their decision to share their technological skills, even though the company’s goal is its profit, that is based on users trust. However, the colossal amount of deaths caused by the bombings would show that the decision of developing this technology before a terrorist group does would not necessarily limit security risks but could massively increase them.

Leave a comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Scroll to Top