By now, you would have thought the “Apple vs. FBI” showdown would have gone away. It’s still here. It’s getting bigger. Generally, these kinds of showdowns happen behind closed doors with lawyers collecting big fees. But this one has become a public relations high-stakes-cage match — although no doubt the lawyers are still collecting big fees. Who is going to capitulate?
Likely, Apple will be forced to help the FBI, as it should. But in the end, even if this one phone is accessed, a bigger cost has been paid. The United States will have won the battle but lost the war. Terrorist attacks cannot happen without the aid of mobile technology. As it makes your life function, so it does for the bad guys.
Now, as this case has grown in notoriety, so, too has the “blueprint” for how to commit a terrorist attack without a trace, or a very limited technological trace. This is a crucial moment in our country and our fight against terrorism. What ultimately happens with this one phone is irrelevant to what happens going forward. Technology’s steady advancement needs a clearer resolution. Next time, instead of fighting this in the headlines, let’s have a working group of established stakeholders sitting at the table. We will save time, we will save lives and we won’t be playing this out in the headlines.
When we play closer attention to the changing dynamics of innovation converging against threats, we would avoid being in a similar impasse in the future. We need to establish an advisory board to the president, with a similar mandate as the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, but for Cyber Technology Intelligence (PCTI). This outside body would be comprised of highly respected Americans from the fields of technology, civil liberties and law enforcement. The “PCTI” would provide the president with candid appraisals of real and developing technology conflicts between security, liberty and technical capabilities. This presidential-level body would have responsibilities reviewing the propriety, legality and capability of cyber surveillance and its impact.
The board would have special status, and need to establish a bi-partisan tradition, tone, and independence. Deliberating and communicating in such a way to achieve a real solution — not to grab the next headline. Implementing these steps would achieve unimpeachable objectivity of the PCTI’s advice and so much more confidence from Americans. This is the only means to establish an objective perspective to resolve vexing issues without public posturing and attention grabbing rancor.
Paul Ruppert is the founder and CEO of Global Point View Ltd. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
