Home > Identity Theft > Why Apple Is Right to Protect Your Privacy

Comments 0 Comments

Steve Jobs understood what people want. His insistence on making hard things easier — for instance, using a personal computer — was an essential part of the Apple success story. Apple CEO Tim Cook has been doing the same thing — but now the “hard thing” is privacy and encryption.

Apple has consistently earned top marks for its privacy and data security policies. That said, since the San Bernardino shooting, which left 14 dead and 22 seriously injured, the company’s privacy-first approach has been experiencing a sort of baptism by fire.

Much debate has arisen around the encryption on San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone 5C. Shortly after the shooting, the iCloud password associated with Farook’s phone was reset by a law enforcement officer attempting to gather information.

The snafu purportedly eliminated the opportunity for any information on the phone to auto backup onto the cloud when the device was used on a recognized Wi-Fi network. This information could have then been retrieved.

According to ABC News, the last time Farook’s phone had been backed up was Oct. 19, 2015 — a month and a half before the attack. According to court documents, this fact suggested, “Farook may have disabled the automatic iCloud backup function to hide evidence.”

Apple provided the FBI with the iCloud backups prior to Oct. 19. But the government wanted access to the phone, at least partially to discern if Farook had any terrorist ties. And, to get to it, the FBI asked Apple to reverse a feature that erases an iPhone’s data after 10 failed attempts to unlock it. If Apple did so, the government could use software to guess Farook’s passcode.

The FBI argued its reset of Farook’s password should not prevent Apple from honoring this request.

“It is unknown whether an additional iCloud backup of the phone after that date — if one had been technically possible — would have yielded any data,” the agency said in a statement. “Direct data extraction from an iOS device often provides more data than an iCloud backup contains.”

And, last week, a federal court ordered Apple to develop a custom iOS so the FBI could gain access to the phone. Apple is refusing to comply with the court order.

“Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor,” CEO Tim Cook said in an open letter to Apple customers. “And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”

What’s at Stake

Consumer awareness around privacy and encryption has gained traction, following Edward Snowden’s revelations regarding the scope of government surveillance practices at the National Security Agency. Still, the public’s response to Apple’s current plight remains divided.

While some pundits, commentators and high-profile figures have argued the FBI should be able to access phone records in cases where national security may be at risk, others have come to Cook’s defense, arguing he is right to protect Apple customers. I, too, believe he is right to stand his ground here. In an environment where many companies would allow law enforcement to access private information, Apple is standing up for consumers and suggesting they can no longer tolerate routine incursions into their private lives — whether the so-called trespassers hail from the halls of government or invade in the interest of commerce.

To create an iOS or any other kind of backdoor into a personal device creates moral hazard. The potato chip theory applies to law enforcement and the erosion of the constitutional rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens. One potato chip leads to another, and it’s hard to stop eating them. In the same way, one legal mulligan leads to another.

There has to be a point in the evolution of consumer privacy (or its disintegration) where we can no longer lower our standards as fast as our situation is deteriorating. When it comes to our privacy we really have to stand firm — and Tim Cook is doing that.

Executive Director of the Privacy and Big Data Institute at Ryerson University Ann Cavoukian long ago coined the phrase “Privacy by Design” to describe what’s starting to happen in the U.S. marketplace. Her theory was that consumers will start shopping for the best deals on their privacy — the less personal information required by a potential service or product, the more appealing it will be to the consumer.

So in that regard, the Justice Department is right to suggest, as it did last week that Apple is trying to protect its “public brand marketing strategy.” But in this instance, the strategy is consumer advocacy — nothing more or less. Privacy is not a brand. It is a right. And, contrary to popular belief, it’s no longer particularly hard, either. Apple’s strategy is to provide a useable product that is safe — and protects users against a potential war on their privacy.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

More on Identity Theft:

Image: Wavebreak Media

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team