Use the attached sources to respond to the discussion.
Who are the stakeholders in this and how might they be affected by Apple’s decision?
There are a lot of stakeholders, including the FBI, the Government, the defendants and the prosecution. You could even go so far as to say that really all US citizens are stakeholders because the outcome could determine how their data is protected going forward. The very idea of utilitarianism is that an action will cause the greatest good for the greatest number (Gilbert, 2016). Allowing access to the data means greater protection overall for everyone. If there is probable cause and reason to believe additional danger exists, accessing the data could prevent another attack from happening. However, it is also at the same time a huge security risk. Apple has argued that creating a backdoor would be a slippery slope, setting a dangerous precedent for user privacy and cybersecurity overall (Nicas and Benner, 2020).
What decision benefits the greatest number of these stakeholders?
It was determined in both cases to not allow access to the encrypted data. Law enforcement and the government were forced to find a work-around. Tim Cook determined it would just be too dangerous a precedent to set. Where would the line be drawn when law enforcement was demanding access to data? For the security of American citizens, Mr. Cook believed the greater good was to not cooperate with law enforcement. A backdoor was not created.
Do you agree with the decision that utilitarianism leads you to? Why or why not?
I am extremely torn on this matter. I understand both sides of the argument. If law enforcement has probably cause and reason to believe that accessing the data would protect more people in the long-run, it is hard to see why they should not be given the needed access. But at the same time, I do understand that it is setting a very dangerous precedent. It is also a huge security risk knowing that a backdoor exists that ill-intending individuals could access and use for the wrong reasons.
Does applying the test in Rights and Duties or Fairness and Justice lead you to a different answer?
The rights and duties approach says that the actual act recognizes the rights of people (Gilbert, 2016). Using that logic, the correct decision was made to not allow access to the data. The first amendment rights of US citizens were protected. The decisions made set precedent for other cases going forward, which falls into the fairness and justice approach (Gilbert, 2016). The first case in which Mr. Cook refused to code the backdoor allowed for a similar decision to be made with the Pensacola, FL case.
References
Gilbert, J. (2016). Ethics for managers: philosophical foundations and business realities (2nd ed.). Routledge. Retrieved from https://eds-s-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=6f84a4f8-0208-4348-9be9-22b7e88e619b%40redis&ppid=pp_27&vid=0&format=EB
Nicas, J. and Benner, K. (2020). F.B.I. asks Apple to help unlock two iPhones. New York Times Online. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/news/docview/2333999028/6A9FCFA903A74355PQ?parentSessionId=KVqeDbESI0z3NBAFzdKsmFkxBiUrV4lsIY063a1KTX8%3D&accountid=14580
