One of the recent controversies to enter into the public debate has been Apple Incorporated’s refusal to assist the government in unlocking the security features on an iPhone so that its data could be accessed for more information on the actions of domestic terrorists in California. What was interesting about this controversy was how people came out of the woodwork to express both support or opposition towards the refusal of Apple. Gaining the data is important, but to do so would have resulted in Apple potentially compromising the security of its phone systems which millions of people around the world are dependent on.
Hidden among the back-and-forth arguments was the notion of the protection of personal privacy and the increasing amounts of government scrutiny involving an individual’s private actions. Violations of personal privacy have become all too familiar in this day and age; this was noted in the privacy violations by the NSA that were exposed by Edward Snowden. In fact, such actions are not as rare as you may think as seen in the case of the British government and its surveillance programs. Amnesty International even stated that such an act was a clear violation of the human rights of a significant portion of the UK population (Essers 9). This is surprising because the UK is supposedly a bastion for the protection of human rights.
A Lack of Trust
The origin of this problem lies in the current belief of governments that they know what is best for the community they protect and, as such, utilize methods that they believe would be best suited to prevent its destruction. This way of thinking is similar to what can be seen in the book “Are We All Scientific Experts Now” by Harry Collins wherein instead of a deteriorating belief of the public in the capabilities of scientists,
what is present is a lack of trust of the government in its people. Yes, domestic terrorists do exist and yes they are a danger to the general public, but developing the notion that compromising a fundamental human right that would affect millions to prevent a threat that would only have an impact on a few dozen at most does not seem right. The increased amount of willingness of governments around the world to violate an individual’s right to privacy is not in accordance with their mandate of protecting their citizenry (Fabbrini 65). It is worrying and even an indication that there is a lack of sufficient moral oversight to prevent such actions from escalating even more in the future.
The Power of Nightmares
As seen in the iPhone debate, many stated that the government should have been given access since they needed it to prevent more terrorist actions. The basis behind their support is fear, and this fear can be boiled down into a single phrase: “The Power of Nightmares”. First stated by Adam Curtis in his BBC documentary series, the power of nightmares refers to the act of pointing out a potential manifestation of a threat as something that could occur. It is the fear of such events coming to pass that causes both governments and their citizenry to acquiesce towards the implementation of policies and directives that they otherwise would not have gone through with (Reddick, Chatfield, and Jaramillo 132).
Going back to the perspective of Collins from “Are We All Scientific Experts Now”, such an attitude is similar to the case of people believing in the “expertise” of individuals who spout facts and figures without truly understanding what they are talking about while calling themselves “experts.” Instead of “Are We All Scientific Experts Now” what is occurring is “Are We All Gods Now” wherein fear creates the notion that something that is very unlikely to happen will occur simply because it has been thought of by them. Unfortunately, the problem with fear is that it can spread and corrupt the best of intentions. Currently, the power of nightmares is extensively used by governments to garner support for their actions from the general public.
Conclusion
Many governments around the world have lost sight of their original mandate since they have let fear affect them and use the same fear to influence the public they are supposed to protect. As this fear grows, rights and liberties will continue to be at risk. This is why the actions of Apple Incorporated in refusing to assist the government are so important.
Works Cited
Essers, Loek. “Mass Surveillance Programs Do Not Violate Human Rights, UK Tribunal Rules.” PC World (08131384) (2014): 9. Print.
Fabbrini, Federico. “Human Rights In The Digital Age: The European Court Of Justice Ruling In The Data Retention Case And Its Lessons For Privacy And Surveillance In The United States.” Harvard Human Rights Journal 28.1 (2015): 65. Print.
Reddick, Christopher G., Akemi Takeoka Chatfield, and Patricia A. Jaramillo. “Public Opinion On National Security Agency Surveillance Programs: A Multi-Method Approach.” Government Information Quarterly 32.2 (2015): 129-141. Print.