Apple Vs FBI - The Legal Wrangle

In the United States, the dispute between the company Apple and the nation’s FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is getting bigger.

Especially, after Microsoft’s founder  Bill Gates spoke in support of FBI saying Apple should simply go ahead and give FBI what it’s asking for.

The cyberspace was immediately abuzz with criticism, and most of the global IT community started lambasting  Gates’ stance.

And I feel too that Gates got it wrong.  Slightly.

On technology. And on morality.

But let us backtrack a bit, and start from the very beginning.

On 2 December 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

The attack was carried out by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, both lawful residents of USA of Pakistani descent. The police had then chased the SUV (sports utility vehicle) in which the attacker-duo was trying to escape, and killed them in the shootout.

Now, the police wants the iPhone of the killer Syed Rizwan Farook to be opened by Apple, as a part of its investigation.

Apple is saying it can’t.

Actually, to be more precise, Apple is saying it won’t.

In a letter to all customers, Apple’s chief Tim Cook wrote: “The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand”.

The letter also says,  “the FBI wants us 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.” (See www.apple.com/cutomer-letter/ )

Bill Gates says that Apple has the technology to retrieve the information that the government wants. And like many banks - which must submit to government, all required information on bank-accounts of, say, money launderers and accused terrorists to help in investigations – Apple should comply too.

But therein lies the problem. Unlike banks which have access to all their customers’ information, Apple doesn’t.

It is like Apple has stored all the data in a locker and has thrown the key away. And even Apple cannot open it without using “brute force” which FBI wants it to do.

Apple’s policy on privacy has always been, “what the customer stores in his phone is none of our business”.

But this is a case of a terrorist. So, why can’t they make an exception, asks Bill Gates.

Creating a backdoor-software, however, would effectually create a technology which could be replicated, making all iPhone devices vulnerable. That is Tim Cook’s argument .

Meanwhile, interestingly, the Anti-virus software creator John McAfee has offered to break the encryption on the iPhone if FBI asks him. In fact, he said he would “eat his shoe” on a TV show, if he can’t!

Now, as I see it, Apple is interested in individuals’ data security. And the government is interested in public security.

Private security or public security? That is the ethical dilemma which spawned this legal battle.

With US government known for its spying on citizens, it is not surprising that many software industry giants are backing Apple’s stand, including Google and Facebook.

This legal wrangle, I am sure, will result in a major revolution in Privacy Law and Public Interest.

The Happiness Officers

"Don’t Worry, Be Happy,” says Bobby McFerrin, in his award-winning song.

“If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands” say the children in their kindergarten action-song.

But what if we don’t know how?

Then, perhaps, the government can help. And try to make us happy.

This week’s appointment of a ‘Minister of State for Happiness’, by the UAE government, shows a growing new trend.

Many large corporations – and, as we can see now, even governments - are appointing officials whose primary mission is to spread good cheer, all around.

It was ten years ago, that I heard – for the first time - the term CHO (Chief Happiness Officer), and that it is a real ‘official’ designation, or job-title, given to that imaginary Ronald McDonald.

He is that clown-character, the primary mascot of the McDonald's fast-food restaurant chain, seen around their outlets and in their promotion material.

I still don’t know how this red-haired, white-faced, clown, donned in a yellow jumpsuit, and red-and-white striped shirt-and-socks, could make people “happy”. But that’s his job.

Google took the task of keeping its employees happy so seriously that it appointed Chade-Meng Tan to a position that is the equivalent of a ‘Chief Happiness Officer’.

But Meng’s official job title is – believe it or not - ‘Jolly Good Fellow’!

A July-2014 article of ‘New Republic’ says that Meng’s self-made job description is to “enlighten minds, open hearts, and create world peace.”

During a 2010 TED talk, Meng had said he was greatly influenced by a certain Mathieu Ricard, who despite a Ph. D in molecular genetics, left everything to become a Buddhist Monk.

Buddhism, by the way, is the state religion of the Kingdom of Bhutan. And it was, actually, Bhutan's fourth Dragon King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck who coined the phrase 'Gross National Happiness (GNH)’ in 1972.

According to this former king - who recently abdicated the throne in favour of his eldest son – their GNH represents Bhutan’s commitment towards building an economy that would serve Bhutan's culture based on Buddhist spiritual values instead of western material development gauged by gross domestic product (GDP).

And, even in 2015, Bhutan has made a detailed analysis of its citizens’ levels of happiness, to calculate its GNH.

So, the UAE government’s appointment of a dynamic young lady Ohood Al Roumi as Minister of State for Happiness, in UAE is, in a way, a natural progression on the world-wide interest of leaders in increasing happiness within their respective countries.

In the World Happiness Report 2015, I found immense praise for UAE, on UAE’s public policy related to happiness.

The report says: The case of the UAE is worth special mention in part for the extent to which happiness and well-being have been made central tenets of the design and delivery of the National Agenda “… to be the happiest of all nations.”

In that global report’s “Ranking of Happiness 2012-2014”, UAE is ranked 20. Top three countries on the table are Switzerland, Iceland and Denmark. United States is 15. And United Kingdom is 21, immediately after UAE.

So quite clearly, UAE is doing something right when it comes to happiness.

While I think it is the responsibility of all ministers to govern effectively and efficiently,  to promote goodness, and thereby happiness, perhaps, a ‘Minister of State for Happiness’ might help as a catalyst in that effort.