Apple and DOJ are both right

Apple’s strategy to protect its business model runs a thin line between privacy concerns and the deeper implications for the future. DOJ is right to point out that privacy, as is being portrayed, is not eroded as it is still talking of one single iPhone, that of the terrorist, not any number of phones to be hacked through a software.

But Apple is trapped between a promise it stood for and the start of a potential Tsunami, it could entail, if software is allowed to be developed to partially or fully hack a smart phone, which could get into the data stored in the clouds.

Getting into one single smart phone to get the private data is one thing, but to allow software to be developed that could get into any number of phones is another matter. Apple stands by its commitment not to monetize the data stored in the clouds to potential marketers as that would be the end of its brand otherwise.

Apple’s contention is that the particular phone in question actually could have been got into easily if the ID had not been changed, inadvertently, the question of the software would not have risen.

The argument runs weak as DOJ points that the large part of Tim Cook’s note to the customers is uncalled for as it treads not on the particular case in point, but goes to broader questions of the potential use of such software in other phones and how it would impact the business models of smart phones.

Smart phones are currently being used for almost every transaction we make in daily lives. Every single of these transactions, what site we get into, how many seconds we spend on a page, what we like or write or pass on is stored in the Clouds, which could be retrieved any moment. All our spend data could be tracked and analyzed and wherever we travel, we could be traced whether we like it or not.

The current configuration does not automatically allow these things to be done without our consent. But that could change with new software that could hack into our system and enquire into all of these without our consent.

Let me take the simple location question.

We have requests pouring in on the smart phone asking us whether our location could be allowed to be accessed. Such requests, appearing harmless, could be transgressions whose full implications we may not be aware of. Location is the most vital information, which actually is available in every server connected with any mobile phone. The question is whether any one should be given access to such a data and under what circumstances this access could be granted even to the law-enforcement agencies.

The making of software that could by-pass the security configuration that Apple has committed to provide to all buyers of its phone goes against the very business model of Apple. It does not matter whether this software is for one single occasion and specific instance. The very chance that this software exists is enough for other hackers to co-create such possibilities.

The solution to this puzzle is not simple that one can create the software for a single instance use and after use destroy the software.

We are few days away from the final showdown. DOJ is right to ask what it is asking Apple to do. Mr. Cook has escalated his battle lines where all platforms have come together starting from Google to Amazon.

The broader question of data security and access is now up for a deeper scrutiny. This was coming anyway, as privacy concerns on data in the clouds and the impending access to such data for monetizing could not be played out in those private corridors without discussion and participation by the general public.

Now, thanks to Donald Trump, we see the power of a single Tweet; it does not matter whether the Tweet was material or not, at least it brought the bigger questions to the fore.