
Apple and the FBI have been embroiled in a controversial
tussle lately that raises issues of consumer privacy. The
situation at hand, which all started when the FBI issued a court order to
Apple to create a new software that would enable them to access the phone
of the San Bernardino killer, Syed Farook, would introduce a “back door” to the mobile phone that could potentially be susceptible to hackers.
The RTP team
discusses the potential effects the battle between the FBI and Apple will have
on the retail industry, and highlights where retailers draw the line when it
comes to the collection and usage of consumer data.
Debbie Hauss,
Editor-in-Chief: This is a difficult issue because we are talking about
national security. At the same time, it will be frightful to many consumers to
think that their privacy could potentially be violated to this degree. That
said, most of us know that we can be tracked during almost every move we make
these days. For example, there are as many as 6,000 public and private
surveillance cameras in New York City today. Also, approximately 200 license
plate readers are tracking suspected terrorists, fugitives and even people with
expired plates. OK that’s mostly public movement, right? The private
conversations on our phones should be protected, shouldn’t they? That’s the
debate that Apple is having internally and with the FBI. Breaking into one
phone may be just fine in this case, but the potential to break into every
phone moving forward, at the random discretion of the FBI today, but also
possibly future employers, potential dates and maybe ex-spouses? Scary…so
scary that consumers may want to take a step back from all the information
they’re starting to share with retail companies in order to get a personalized
deal or unique promotion. They may think twice about the value of that exchange
if the FBI wins this battle.
Adam Blair, Executive
Editor: It’s become clearer and clearer that no one has an absolute right
to privacy. With Edward Snowden’s revelations and the Sony hacking scandal,
it’s surprising anyone even has an expectation of privacy any more. And if ever
there were a case that looks tailor-made for siding with law enforcement, it’s
this one: national security is at stake, the phone’s owners have consented to
the search and the phone’s user is dead. But just as the limits of free speech
are only really tested with worst-case scenarios (neo-Nazis and Klansmen), I’m
coming down on the side of Apple’s refusal to provide a key to Pandora’s box.
With governmental privacy policies weak and inconsistent at best, for better or
worse it’s fallen to corporations to safeguard people’s personal data. As
Robert Levine wrote in a Feb. 21 New
York Times opinion piece, “While nobody elected [Tim] Cook to
protect our privacy, we should be glad someone is.” Retailers and others
that gather consumer data should make sure their own privacy policies are
carefully thought out and spelled out, just in case the government comes
knocking on their doors.
Advertisement
David DeZuzio,
Managing Editor: Funny enough, I thought there were backdoors already in
place for all smartphones, but Tim Cook’s open letter changed my mind. I’ve
been under the idea that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy anymore
anyway. Customer data is asked for and attained in nearly every transaction
imaginable and for anyone to think that any country on this planet is a bastion
of personal privacy and security is, to me, a tad naive. We’ve seen plenty of
corporate hackings that have exposed millions, if not billions, of customers’
sensitive information. It’s all out there anyway. I don’t object to Apple’s
refusal to unlock encrypted information and you can of course argue that in
this one case, it is completely necessary. It also doesn’t look bad to Apple’s
customers and investors that they are not going to cave in to anyone’s demands.
In other cases, the government can issue warrants for seizure and confiscation
of physical property, whether it’s a safe, locker, or a locked door or locked
car, to prove guilt or obtain valuable information. Phone data is no different.
If they provide a backdoor for this one phone, for this one time, that’s one
story. But, the simple fact is, once it’s out there, it’s out there. You can’t
stuff the cat back in the bag or the encryption backdoor off of the phone.
Klaudia Tirico,
Associate Editor: Since people rely so much on their phones to store
hard-to-remember, personal information, the issue of Apple vs. the FBI is
something we should all be concerned about — retailers, consumers and everyone
in between. With mobile pay apps on the rise, personalized bank apps on almost
every smartphone home screen and users storing login hints in their Notes app,
people rely on their passcodes to keep their information safe (although it’s
far from enough). The government attempting to gain easy access to those
passcodes — as they are with the San Bernardino terrorist’s phone — is a really
tricky situation, yet has pros and cons. As retailers continue to collect and
use consumer data, they should be extra careful to play their cards right. Like
Adam said, they should make sure their own privacy policies are squared away.
If the government is coming down on Apple, who’s to say it won’t come down on
anyone else. As a consumer, I’m going to continue to think twice about what
information I share with companies or on my own phone in general. The emphasis
is on the word “continue” because, in my opinion, people should have been
concerned about privacy long before the Apple/FBI case was brought to
light.
Glenn Taylor,
Associate Editor: Retailers would be smart to learn from Apple and
understand the power of keeping their own consumer data out of anyone else’s
hands. While retailers themselves aren’t making mobile devices that harbor
information as to what a person is doing and where they are located on a daily
basis, they have an enormous amount of consumer data sitting in their servers
that indicates their home address and where they have shopped from. Of course,
in the case of Farook, a dead man has no privacy rights, but the idea that the
government can court order any company for a “one-time” clause sets an ugly
precedent for what it can do any time a “special” situation pops up. Consumers
have enough of a time worrying about retailers knowing about their favorite apparel,
so I can’t imagine the reaction if it was made public that these retailers
shared this data with government officials. I hope retailers continue to stick
to their guns and not only reinforce their present policies, but also make
those policies transparent so consumers know where they stand.