Abstract
The recent case between Apple and the FBI, in which Apple refused to comply with a court order to aid the FBI in overriding the security features of an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists, brought the tension between national security and individual rights to the forefront. This article looks at the case and these two core values from a liberal communitarian ethics perspective, and provides an analysis of how these values are reflected in U.S. law. It concludes with an ethical discussion relevant to the resolution of differences between high-tech corporations and the government.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackerman, S. (2016, February 17). Apple encryption case risks influencing Russia and China, privacy experts say. The Guardian. Accessed March 29, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/apple-fbi-encryption-san-bernardino-russia-china.
Agbude, G. A., et al. (2015). Kant’s categorical imperative and the “business” of profit maximization: The quest for service paradigm. Technology and Investment, 6, 1–11.
Argandona, A. (1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics 17(9) (07), 1093–1102.
Apple Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Apple, Inc. to Assist Agents in Search and Opposition to Government’s Motion to Compel Assistance. In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate #5KGD203, ED No. CM 16-10 (SP).
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321. (1987). Available at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/480/321.html.
Benner, K., & Apuzzo, M. (2016, February 22) Narrow focus may aid F.B.I in Apple case. The New York Times. Accessed March 22, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/technology/apple-unlock-iphone-san-bernardino.html.
Brown, M. (2006). Corporate integrity and public interest: A relational approach to business ethics and leadership. Journal of Business Ethics 66 (1) (06), 11–18.
Comey, J. (2014). Going dark: Are technology, privacy, and public safety on a collision course? (Speech, Brookings Institution Washington, D.C., October 16 2014). Accessed April 24, 2015, from http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacy-and-public-safety-on-a-collision-course.
Communitarian Observations, March 18. (2016). Available at: https://communitariannetwork.org/sites/communitariannetwork.org/files/downloads/CommOb_March182016.pdf.
Communitarian Observations March 7. (2016). Available at: https://communitariannetwork.org/sites/communitariannetwork.org/files/downloads/CommOb_March72016.pdf.
Cook, T. (2016). A message to our customers. Accessed March 29, 2016, from http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/.
Crovitz, G. (2016, February 29). Apple’s rotten core. The Wall Street Journal.
Etzioni, A. (1996). The new golden rule. New York: Basic Books.
Etzioni, A. (2014). The corporation as a community: Stakeholder theory. In M. Boylan (Ed.), Business ethics (pp. 87–95). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Etzioni, A. (2015). The standing of the public interest. Barry Law Review, 20:2 (Spring 2015) 191–217.
Etzioni, A. (2016). Apple’s Chinese red herrings. Huffington Post, March 17, 2016.
Federighi, C. (2016, March 6). Apple VP: The FBI wants to roll back safeguards that keep us a step ahead of criminals, Washington Post. Accessed March 23, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/apple-vp-the-fbi-wants-to-roll-back-safeguards-that-keep-us-a-step-ahead-of-criminals/2016/03/06/cceb0622-e3d1-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html.
Gibbs, N. (2016, March 17). Here’s the full transcript of TIME’s interview with tim cook. TIME. Accessed March 22, 2016, from http://time.com/4261796/tim-cook-transcript/.
Greenberg, A. (2016, April 8). The Senate’s draft encryption bill is ‘ludicrous, dangerous, technically illiterate. Wired. Accessed May 17, 2016, from https://www.wired.com/2016/04/senates-draft-encryption-bill-privacy-nightmare/.
Government’s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel and Opposition to Apple Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Order. In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate #5KGD203, ED No. CM 16-10 (SP).
Grossman, L. (2016, March 17). Inside Apple CEO Tim Cook’s fight with the FBI. Time. Accessed March 22, 2016, from http://time.com/4262480/tim-cook-apple-fbi-2/.
Hope, C. (2015, January 12). Spies should be able to monitor all online messaging, says David Cameron. The Telegraph. Accessed May 5, 2015, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/11340621/Spies-should-be-able-to-monitor-all-online-messaging-says-David-Cameron.html.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11, 11 (1905).
Kang, C. (2016, May 8). Police and tech giants wrangle over encryption on Capitol Hill. The New York Times. Accessed May 17, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/technology/police-and-tech-giants-wrangle-over-encryption-on-capitol-hill.html?_r=0.
Kerr, O. (2016, February 19). Preliminary thoughts on the Apple iPhone order in the San Bernardino case: Part 2, the All Writs Act. Washington Post. Accessed March 29, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/19/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-2-the-all-writs-act/.
Kolstad, I. (2007). Why firms should not always maximize profits. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 137–145.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27. (2001). Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html.
Levine, D. (2016, March 4). Police say criminals like Apple iPhones because of encryption. Reuters. Accessed March 28, 2016, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-police-idUSKCN0W62AP.
Lichtblau, E., & Benner, K. (2016, February 17). Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone. The New York Times. Accessed March 22, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0.
Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 320 (1978).
Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 447 (1990).
Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1997). Criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(3) (02), 337–347.
Privacy and Security in a Digital Age. (2016). Council on foreign relations. Available at: http://www.cfr.org/privacy/privacy-security-digital-age/p37845.
Regan, L. (2014). Electronic communications surveillance. Monthly Review, 66(3), 32–42.
Romm, T. (2016, April 14). Apple hires NFL, Biden veteran for key policy role. Politico. Accessed May 16, 2016, from http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/apple-hires-cynthia-hogan-221937.
Sacconi, L. (2006). A social contract account for CSR as an extended model of corporate governance (I): Rational bargaining and justification. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3), 259–281.
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 507–508.
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 634 (1989).
Stephens, B. (2013). Are corporations people? Corporate personhood under the constitution and international law. Rutgers Law Journal, 44(1), 1.
Sydell, L. (2016, March 12). In Apple security case, Obama calls to strike a balance. NPR. Accessed March 30, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/2016/03/12/470194268/in-apple-security-case-obama-calls-to-strike-a-balance.
Taylor, M. et al. (2013, November 1). NSA surveillance may cause breakup of internet, warn experts,” The Guardian. Accessed March 21, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/01/nsa-surveillance-cause-internet-breakup-edward-snowden.
Tracy, A. (2016, February 26). Here’s why Apple says hacking iPhones violates free speech. Forbes. Accessed March 21, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailtracy/2016/02/26/apple-fbi-backdoor-tim-cook-san-bernadino-first-amendment-iphone-case/#7bacf5e32a24.
Tsukayama, H. (2016, February 26). We asked a First Amendment lawyer if Apple’s ‘code is speech’ argument holds water. Here’s what he said. Washington Post. Accessed March 21, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/02/26/we-asked-a-first-amendment-lawyer-if-apples-code-is-speech-argument-holds-water-heres-what-he-said/.
Welna, D. (2016, April 14). The next encryption battleground: Congress. NPR. Accessed May 16, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/14/474113249/the-next-encryption-battleground-congress.
Williams, R. (2016, 22 February). Tim Cook urges FBI reform to respect privacy in letter to staff. The Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/02/22/tim-cook-urges-fbi-reform-to-respect-privacy/.
United States v. Jones, 615 F. 3d 544 (2012) Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1259.
U.S. Const. amend. I.
U.S. Const. amend IV.
Yadron, D. et al. (2016, February 18). Inside the FBI’s encryption battle with Apple. The Guardian. Accessed March 22, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/inside-the-fbis-encryption-battle-with-apple.
Yan, S., & King, H. (2015, October 12). Apple News is blocked in China. CNN. Accessed May 16, 2016, from http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/12/technology/apple-news-blocked-china/.
Funding
This study was not funded by any grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Amitai Etzioni declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
I am indebted to Anne Jerome for research assistance on this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Etzioni, A. Apple: Good Business, Poor Citizen?. J Bus Ethics 151, 1–11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3233-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3233-4