Would you stop buying Apple’s products if it decided to help the FBI open a terrorists iPhone? I thought not.
Which is to say that Apple CEO Tim Cook, in his refusal to help the FBI break into iphones, is ahead of most of the population. But maybe not all that far ahead. His very public stance might even turn out to be the smartest thing he’s done for Apple since becoming CEO.
We all give our privacy away every day, constantly, to a panoply of entities. I actually snorted a laugh when Facebook and Google proclaimed their support for Cook’s position. Facebook and Google horde more data about us than any other commercial entities and make billions of dollars on it. Remember, their products are free; their core business is selling the details of our lives to advertisers.
At the moment, when most consumers say they’re concerned about privacy, they’re kidding themselves. A recent survey by TRUSTe and the National Cyber Security Alliance found that 92 percent of respondents who use the Internet said they worry about online privacy, yet 89 percent do not avoid businesses they feel are not respecting their privacy.
In other words, our anxieties about this stuff are completely disconnected from our actions.
And encroachments on our privacy are only going to get worse. Wearables like Fitbits, smart home devices like Nest, connected cars and Internet of Things sensors are all creating ever more data about ever more detailed and intimate aspects of our lives. Artificial intelligence software can stitch together different kinds of data to paint a ridiculously accurate picture of an individual.
In many ways, we welcome this — the better technology knows us, the better it can serve us. But at what point does the exploitation of our details turn from convenience into invasion? And don’t we want control of that knob to understand and decide what we’re agreeing to share?
Cook is making us think about all that now. Do most people care much about this one case, this one phone? Not likely. But this fight is making us realize that we need to make some decisions, individually and as a society, about digital privacy before it gets away from us. A cynic might say Apple can afford to take this stand because it doesn’t rely on selling advertising as a business model. But every company should take the public’s interest in Apple’s decision to heart. Privacy is rising to a new level of awareness.
Apple, so often on the forefront, seems to know this. The FBI said Cook’s stand is a marketing ploy. In Cook’s letter to customers, he snorted, “Absolutely not. Nothing could be further from the truth.” He added, “This is and always has been about our customers. We feel strongly that if we were to do what the government has asked of us - to create a backdoor to our products — not only is it unlawful but it puts the vast majority of good and law — abiding citizens, who rely on iphone to protect their most personal and important data, at risk.”
So, really, Cooks’ position may not be a ploy. It could turn out to be brilliant marketing.
1. Why did the author snort a laugh when Facebook and Google proclaimed their support for Cook’s position?
2. What does the word “encroachment” in paragraph 6 mean?
3. The following devices are creating more data about our lives in a more detailed and intimate way EXCEPT（ ）.
4. What can we infer from this passage?
5. The best title for this passage would be（ ）.
