Modern field guide to security and privacy

In the Apple v. FBI clash, the public is still on the sidelines

Privacy advocates organized rallies in some 40 cities Tuesday night to drum up support for Apple in the iPhone case. But attendance was sparse in some cities and the public's interest lackluster in others. 

Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
Several Pro-Apple demonstrators rallied in New York City on Feb. 23.

Apple's stand against the FBI has sparked a raucous debate on social media and in tech policy circles, but reactions from the broader public don't appear, at least for now, firmly on one side or the other.

That was evident Tuesday night as digital rights and civil liberties groups organized nationwide protests to support Apple's resistance against an FBI request to help access an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters. 

In Boston, some 30 people crowded in front of an Apple Store. They held banners and signs that read, “Don’t break our phones.” The largest protest appeared to be in San Francisco, where some 50 Apple supporters rallied, but in New York City only about eight people turned out for the pro-Apple rally, according to USA Today.

At the rally in Boston, few passersby gave the protesters more than a second look. And several people who this reporter spoke with about the demonstrators either hadn't followed the debate between the FBI closely or didn't have any opinion on the issue. 

According to a recent Pew Research Center study, public opinion narrowly sides with the FBI. The study of just over 1,000 Americans found that 51 percent supported Apple “unlocking” the shooter’s phone, 38 percent said Apple should not help the FBI, and 11 percent were unsure.

The controversy erupted after Apple said it would contest a California judge's order that it help the FBI disable several security measures so the agency could access a phone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters in the December terrorist attack that killed 14 people.

While the FBI argues this is in the interest of national security, Apple and many privacy advocates argue that such assistance sets a dangerous precedent, one that could be used to compel the same kind of access to other iPhones or software from other companies.

Tuesday's rallies were among the first attempts to garner support from the broader public for unbreakable encryption on consumer devices. A day later, Apple CEO Tim Cook gave his first interview since the Apple iPhone controversy erupted, broadening the digital privacy versus national security conversation to an audience beyond the tech set.

"If a court can ask us to write this piece of software, think about what else they could ask us to write. Maybe it's an operating system for surveillance, maybe the ability for the law enforcement to turn on the camera," Mr. Cook said on the ABC News program "World News Tonight." "I don't know where this stops. But I do know that this is not what should be happening in this country."

Among the demonstrators who gathered Tuesday at the Apple Store on Boylston Street were several who worked in the tech industry.

"While I don’t agree with a lot of the things Apple has done over the years, the stance [Tim Cook is] taking right now is really brave,” said Molly de Blanc of Boston who has worked in open source software for several years. "It’s really powerful that he’s looking at what their responsibilities are to Apple customers."

The digital rights nonprofit Fight for the Future, which has become a leading voice in support of Apple's stance and other pro-privacy issues, organized rallies in more than 40 cities Tuesday. 

Chris Gladney, a Web developer who attended the rally, said the issue for him comes down to protecting consumers' privacy. "I’m probably more excited to have an iPhone at this point now knowing how hard Apple is fighting to protect consumer privacy."

Mr. Gladney said he wasn't surprised by the close results of the Pew Survey because of the technical nature of the controversy. 

Still, Apple supporter Sheila Park, a former college professor, was alarmed. "It’s scary to me that 51 percent of people who live in America think it’s ok that our government wants to spy on us,” she said. “Are you kidding?”


You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to