Privacy vs. Security: The Debate that Cannot End

It’s been an interesting debate to watch over the past couple of weeks:

• Spurred by the need to protect Americans from terrorism, the FBI has directed Apple to create software that will unlock the encrypted data on an iPhone belonging to a terrorist. To the general public, this is exactly the type of law enforcement protection that the security-conscious public demands.
• Spurred by the need to provide private communication to a privacy-loving public, Apple has no particular interest in creating this backdoor: and in fact, they view it as being the exact type of government overreach that freedom-loving Americans abhor.

What to do, what to do.

Unfortunately, the right answer is that there is no answer. As we have developed as a civilization, we have ‘socialized’ (and I understand that’s still a dirty word to some) the basic needs of citizens. Housing/shelter: check. Food: check.  Basic education: check. Employment opportunity: sort-of-check. Health care: sort-of-check (battle continues). Access to water: the looming disaster on the horizon.

And in doing so, the battle for the survival of our civilization has moved to one between the haves and have-nots. And that has framed an entirely new conflict. Several of them, actually. They include:

• Whether or not the environment can be destroyed for the benefit of some and the detriment of many
• Whether the basic needs of the many are rights or privileges
• Whether humanity will continue to ignore sustainability as a decision criteria with regard to new capabilities

And this battle over the iPhone, believe it or not, is an offshoot of the fact we have not answered these basic questions well. The terrorists in question, like their logic or not, believed they were representing the disadvantaged. The root cause of terrorism, as has been recognized for many years in academic circles, is poverty, and inadequate access to the economic success of the privileged. Right-wing extremism in our own country is rooted in economic disadvantage, cloaked in racism, and sold as a war against progressive thought. That’s what makes this discussion so dangerous–it is cloaked within layer upon layer of misdirection and misinformation–while the solution sits in front of us, misunderstood by most and disdained by many.

So: YES! Let’s continue to talk about the iPhone, security, government overreach, terrorism, gun control, and all of civilization’s ills as they apply to this issue. These are incredibly important discussions. But let’s also get beyond this: Let’s talk about equitable access to the world’s resources and riches. This world really can sustain us all. We have no need of selecting a subset of people–Muslims, liberals, women, Democrats, Republicans, whatever the opportune target happens to be–and assert that they are not worthy of sharing in the world’s wealth.

So let’s get over that. Then, the question about the iPhone will be a whole lot less important. And that will be a sign of progress. And survival.