1. Running head: APPLE VS USA, ETHICS 1
APPLE VERSUS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT:
AN ANALYSIS IN ETHICS
Katie L. Organ
COMS61011
Purdue University
Author Note
Author is a graduate student at the Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the department chair.

2. APPLE VS USA, ETHICS 2
Executive Summary
Parties involved:
Apple, United States Government (USG)
Summary of ethical situation:
US Government requests the unlocking of terror suspect’s iPhone, manufactured by
Apple. Apple refuses, citing unprecedented access and concerns for implications on privacy
laws.
Theories Applied:
Extended Cognition – “view that cognition must be understood as taking place both ‘in
the head’ as the brain and central nervous system and ‘outside of the head’ when external tools
such as pen and paper are employee” (Roux & Falgoust, 2013, p. 183).
Deontology theory – “nonconsequentialism; the rightness of an action is determined not
by its consequences but by whether the action conforms to certain principles” (Fitzpatrick &
Bronstein, 2006, p. 51).
Teleological theory – “considers the ratio of good to evil that the action produces”
(Fitzpatrick & Bronstein, 2006, p.50).
Practical Application:
Apple applies a sense of teleological theory to their reasoning for not unlocking the
phone. The USG takes a deontological approach for reason as to why the phone needs to be
unlocked. In other words, the end justifies the means for the USG, without forethought for any
consequences that may occur as a result of legally forcing Apple to unlock a user’s iPhone.

3. APPLE VS USA, ETHICS 3
Situation Analysis
On the morning of Wednesday, December 2, 2015, two armed people entered the Inland
Regional Center in San Bernardino, California and began shooting. The two suspects in the case
were later identified as the married couple of Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Fourteen people
were killed and twenty-two people were injured. Both attackers were killed by police (Los
Angeles Times, 2015). In the weeks and months after the attack, the United States government
and Apple became locked in a battle “over an order from a federal magistrate in California that
the company must help the FBI try to get into an iPhone used by Syed Farook, by disabling a
feature that would lock investigators out if they made ten (10) unsuccessful tries to determine the
correct password” (Weise, USA Today, 2016). The US government claimed access to the data on
the phone was desired “to determine whether Farook specifically targeted fellow workers at the
December office party or was assisted by others unknown to investigators” (Johnson, 2016).
Apple’s chief operating officer Tim Cook wrote an open letter on Apple’s website on
February 16, 2016, stating the company’s position on the issue. “When the FBI has requested
data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and
search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. … But now the U.S. government has
asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to
create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone. Specifically, the FBI wants us to
make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security
features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this
software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in
someone’s physical possession.”
Cook goes on to say “In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece
of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once

4. APPLE VS USA, ETHICS 4
the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated
by anyone with that knowledge. The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on
one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over
again, on any number of devices.”
Cook’s letter concludes “The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If
the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have
the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this
breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages,
access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s
microphone or camera without your knowledge. … While we believe the FBI’s intentions are
good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products.
And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our
government is meant to protect” (Cook, 2016).
This particular situation presents an ethical dilemma that will continue to present itself
until our society has mutually agreed how we intend to define privacy and, moreover, the extent
to which that definition extends into domains such as smart phones or smart devices. The aim of
this paper it to apply ethical theories and research to guide a conclusion of ethicality and privacy
that supports the decision taken by Apple, not to aid the US government in unlocking the
personal smart phone of one of the attackers in the San Bernardino case. Key theories that
uphold Apple’s decision include “extended cognition”, as discussed in the literature by Roux and
Falgoust (2013), extolling the virtues of privacy protections extending “outside of the head” and
in to items such as smart phones. Additionally, author Stahl analyses “the role that individual
responsibility can play with regard to the realization of information assurance and privacy”
(2004, p 60). People, including those responsible for decisions and actions taken within the US

5. APPLE VS USA, ETHICS 5
government, may not poses the capabilities of understanding their roles of responsibility to
privacy.
Method
The methodology used to locate data that supported Apple’s position, that unlocking
Farook’s iPhone would be unethical and cause a major breach in the current state of privacy rules
and regulations, was to conduct a search of academic journals and publishing’s available through
the Purdue University library system. Key words such as ‘technology’, ‘ethics’, ‘law’, ‘privacy’,
and ‘communication technologies’ were used to scour the databases. Two works were found that
dealt directly with the situation Apple found itself in: “Information ethics in the context of smart
devices” (2013) by Roux and Falgoust, and “Responsibility for Information Assurance and
Privacy: A Problem of Individual Ethics?” (2004) by Stahl. Supporting documentation is
provided by “Ethics in Public Relations” by Fitzpatrick and Bronstein (2006).
The critical factors in conducting the search included the key characteristics of smart
devices, including cellular phones, playing a major role in the way an individual perceives their
position within society. The act of owning a smart device, specifically a cell phone, denotes a
willingness to provide personal information to a larger audience that is otherwise accessible. The
academic research used in this paper needed to support Apple’s notion that “Compromising the
security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why
encryption has become so important to all of us” (Cook, 2016).
Results
Apple argues that in the application of extended cognition and teleological theory, a
theory that “considers the ratio of good to evil that the action produces” (Fitzpatrick & Bronstein,
2006, p.50), the USG is not taking in to consideration potential unintended consequences that
may occur as a result of invading the “head space” of the terror suspect. Regardless of the social

6. APPLE VS USA, ETHICS 6
norms that are present within the United States’ culture that tend towards supporting law
enforcement when terrorism is suspected, the privacy of Apple users and smart phone device
users in the future is a major concern and therefore must be protected for any privacy violations.
The USG’s application of deontology theory, “the rightness of an action is determined not by its
consequences but by whether the action conforms to certain principles” (Fitzpatrick & Bronstein,
2006, p. 51), positions the unlocking of the phone as necessary by applying the society pressure
of “capturing the bad guy” and “justice will prevail”, regardless of what the unlocking may mean
for privacy rights. The ethics involved in unlocking the phone remain to be determined.
The best result of the research methodology was the article authored by Roux and
Falgoust. The authors performed a series of “thought experiments”, or “Gedankenexperiments”,
“against the framework of Extended Cognition, the view that cognition must be understood as
taking place both ‘in the head’’ as the brain and central nervous system and ‘outside of the
head’’’ (2013, p. 183). The idea of “extended cognition” is used as “a background for a series of
thought experiments about privacy and common used information technology devices” (2013, p.
183). The research poses that privacy and the protection of data extends to thoughts that are
made outside of the private space within the control of the individual. That privacy therefore
continues through to the thoughts, feelings, viewpoints, and so on, that are expressed through
music, videos, photos, and social media posts executed through the use of smart devices and
smart phones. “Our Gedankenexperiments incorporate an EC-informed view of smart devices to
examine intuitions about privacy in different kinds of relationships: political (citizens and law
enforcement), economic (employees and employers), and personal (parents and children)” (2013,
p.184). By extending the space of ‘the head’ to that of the space of the smart phone, authors
Roux and Falgoust are able to support Apple’s decision not to unlock the phone of Farook.

7. APPLE VS USA, ETHICS 7
Recommendations
At the time of the writing of this paper, the USG has revoked its request to and legal
pressure on Apple to unlock the phone. An independent third party has offered its services to the
USG to unlock the phone without Apple’s support (Wagner, www.npr.com, 2016). The extended
ramifications of the third party’s involvement may continue the ethical debate. The duality
between deontological and teleological theories remain present, regardless of who ultimately
unlocks the phone.
The recommendation to Apple, by the support of the research performed regarding the
definition of extended cognition and its applications to smart phone technology, is to continue to
maintain the teleological point of view for the company’s ethical standards. Mobile technology is
ever changing. Apple is at the forefront of many of the industries key advancements. As Apple is
a publically traded company, they have responsibilities to their shareholders and investors to
continue to create products and advancements in technology that consumers are willing to
purchase. If consumers are aware that Apple is willing to provide personal and sensitive data by
providing a “back door” into their infrastructure, the consumer will then more less willing, if not
all together cease to purchase Apple’s products.

8. APPLE VS USA, ETHICS 8
Resources
Cook, T. (2016, February 16). A Message to Our Customers. In Apple. Retrieved from
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
Fitzpatrick, K. & Bronstein, C. (2006) Ethics in public relations: Responsible advocacy.
London, UK: Sage Publications
Roux, B., & Falgoust, M. (2013). Information ethics in the context of smart devices.
Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 183-194. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-
9320-7
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/docview/1434119461/5ABD5BB4BC541A2P
Q/2?accountid=13360
Stahl, B. C. (2004). Responsibility for information assurance and privacy: A problem of
individual ethics? Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(3), 59-77. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199905198?accountid=13360
Wagner, L. (2016, March 21). FBI Says It May Be Able To Access Shooter's iPhone
Without Apple's Help. In The Two-Way: Breaking News from NPF. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/21/471353161/fbi-says-it-may-be-able-to-
access-shooters-iphone-without-apples-help