FBI vs. Apple: Opening Pandora’s Box

This week, Apple’s Tim Cook published an open letter to his customers that detailed their opposition to a court order by a California judge to unlock an iPhone used by the San Bernardino terrorists.  In his letter, Tim revealed that “the FBI wants [Apple] to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”

As the CEO of GoDaddy, the world’s largest technology platform for small business and as the son of an FBI agent, I’m in a very weird position to see both sides of this serious predicament.  The FBI in this case is hunting terrorists and they need to use every tool at their disposal to do their job.  But Apple’s first obligation is to the privacy and security of their customers—and there appears to be much more at stake than just unlocking a single phone.  The question at hand is, “does asking Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone OS open a Pandora’s Box that we won’t be able to close?”

My Father joined the FBI in 1959, the year I was born, and was an active special agent for 22 years; rising to the rank of senior resident agent for the Ventura and Santa Barbara counties before he retired to become a Deputy District Attorney in Ventura County, California.  From the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs, to the take down of organized crime and political corruption, my childhood was in a large part defined by the life of an FBI family.  We went where my father was needed, from Puerto Rico in the JFK era to New York and eventually to Southern California with the rise of the illicit drug trade. 

I don’t think you can be in such close proximity to federal law enforcement without developing a deep respect for what they do—and a strong empathy for the challenges they face.  They have a very tough job and I have no doubt that they are working to make the US a safer and better place today and for future generations.

I can’t tell you exactly where the line should be drawn between Apple and the government, though one can’t help but be suspicious when a law from 1789 is unearthed as legal justification for this hack.  No one could have imagined the state of our technological society just 27 years ago in 1989—let alone 227 years ago in 1789.  A shared response between tech companies and government bodies is unquestionably needed.  A good start would be to consider taking obscure and ancient writs out of our tool box when it comes to data privacy.  I, for one, would like to see modern legislation to support government requests like the one Apple is facing instead of the current approach.

One position I take with confidence, however, is that like Apple, GoDaddy’s first obligation is to protect our customer’s privacy.  If we receive a valid subpoena, we respond, but we do not give any government agency a backdoor into our systems.  Though it would be convenient for law enforcement, a back door to any tech platform is a clear attack vector for bad actors and a slippery slope in protecting the privacy of our customer’s data.

Every leader in the tech industry I’ve spoken with wants to help law enforcement do its job, but we don’t want to be part of any overstepping—it’s bad for our customers and ultimately bad for the future of technological innovation. 

Tim closed his letter stating, “While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.”  I support Tim’s guardianship of freedom and liberty, and hope this situation opens a needed dialogue between government, the tech industry, and our customers.  

YOUR VOICE MATTERS IN THIS CONVERSATION
If you have thoughts or even possible solutions, leave them in the comments. I’ll be around in the evenings to respond.