I suppose it's unfair to single him out, as another thread exposed just how evil some of his compatriots in Silicon Valley are. Still, he chose to take a high profile stance on behalf of protecting the encrypted communications of a murderous terrorist.
I see little justification for his position. The phone belonged to the terrorist's employer, so under settled law they have a right to anything on it. That fact alone erases any concerns over the terrorist's right to privacy. Moreover, a dead terrorist and mass murderer retains no privacy rights over something used in planning his crime.
So what is Cook's objection? Apparently he claims that helping his own government investigate an act of terrorism and potentially uncover other terrorists would somehow represent a breach of faith with other users who use encryption. But how? He is raising the specter of letting the genie of decryption out of the bottle. How reasonable is this? And it is his decision to make? In effect, he is using his control of technology to dictate law. I think if a Swiss banker or pharmaceutical company were doing the same thing, most of us would be outraged. Cook however is largely getting a pass, both from the government and the media.
In earlier times, I would hate to see the reaction of a Harry Truman or an Eisenhower to this sort of defiance, or a Rudy Guiliani after 9/11 for that matter. Truman after all sent in troops to take control of the steel mills. Ike sent federal troops to coerce the governors of southern states to accept school desegregation dictates from federal courts. Arguably neither matter posed the sort of risks impeding an ongoing anti-terror investigation does.
For better or worse, Cook's legacy as the successor of Steve Jobs will be determined by this entirely avoidable dispute. It's not like his leadership of Apple has been noteworthy or outstanding in any way whatsoever. If I were an Apple board member, I think I would be drawing up a short list of replacements. Cook's judgment on this has been so wayward that it calls into question his fitness to lead the company.
I see little justification for his position. The phone belonged to the terrorist's employer, so under settled law they have a right to anything on it. That fact alone erases any concerns over the terrorist's right to privacy. Moreover, a dead terrorist and mass murderer retains no privacy rights over something used in planning his crime.
So what is Cook's objection? Apparently he claims that helping his own government investigate an act of terrorism and potentially uncover other terrorists would somehow represent a breach of faith with other users who use encryption. But how? He is raising the specter of letting the genie of decryption out of the bottle. How reasonable is this? And it is his decision to make? In effect, he is using his control of technology to dictate law. I think if a Swiss banker or pharmaceutical company were doing the same thing, most of us would be outraged. Cook however is largely getting a pass, both from the government and the media.
In earlier times, I would hate to see the reaction of a Harry Truman or an Eisenhower to this sort of defiance, or a Rudy Guiliani after 9/11 for that matter. Truman after all sent in troops to take control of the steel mills. Ike sent federal troops to coerce the governors of southern states to accept school desegregation dictates from federal courts. Arguably neither matter posed the sort of risks impeding an ongoing anti-terror investigation does.
For better or worse, Cook's legacy as the successor of Steve Jobs will be determined by this entirely avoidable dispute. It's not like his leadership of Apple has been noteworthy or outstanding in any way whatsoever. If I were an Apple board member, I think I would be drawing up a short list of replacements. Cook's judgment on this has been so wayward that it calls into question his fitness to lead the company.
