Individual Freedom Vis-à-Vis Integrity of the State: A Study with Reference to Apple iPhone

Advancement in telecommunication and networking, especially the mobile-based communication systems, has contributed enormously towards the integration of nations and societies in the form of a ‘global village’. While the technological advancements have made connectivity across the globe so much easier, they have also raised concerns of comprising our privacy and security in the process. The case illustrates the conflict between a technology giant (Apple) versus a superpower country (United States) on sensitive issues of terrorism and national security. The business firm in the case decides to put its commitment to customers ahead of the government’s demands of unlocking the phone of a terrorist in question. The conflicting stands of the two parties highlight the issues of privacy (of a customer—who happens to be a terrorist in this case) versus national security. The government was of the opinion that the security of the nation is paramount and must be given precedence over anything else. Apple viewed the demand from the government as a breach of security assurances given to its customers at the time of product sale. The case raises sensitive issues like responsibility of a business firm to various stakeholders, the obligations of a firm to the customers, the obligations of the democratic government to its citizens, the value systems of a company, the privacy concerns of the citizens and so on. The case raises pertinent questions as to which concern is most urgent and paramount or which one should get preference—privacy of individuals, promises made by the companies or security of the nation? It also makes us ponder regarding the issues we may confront in future—Will incidents like these be more frequent in future? Can we sacrifice freedom of the citizens in the name of security? Can a government sneak into anyone’s private life at will? Are citizens being over-cautious and finicky? Do companies need to join the fight against terrorism rather than worrying about their company policies, protocols or impact on profits? The case provides a context for raising diverse perspectives on these issues and helps facilitate deliberations in focused manner.