In 2015, Apple debuted the iPhone 6S, which employed a default encryption system preventing both Apple and government authorities from accessing data stored on the device. Then, in 2016, a federal judge ordered Apple to provide technical assistance to unlock the iPhone used by one of the mass shooters in San Bernardino, California. Apple refused to comply.
Years later, as the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the globe in 2020, Apple and Google partnered to develop a contact tracing application that would collect information about users infected with the disease and notify those who they had been in contact with. The app would keep information about infection and contact private, but some governments wanted more access. When Apple and Google declined to provide this information, they sparked a debate about the companies’ responsibilities for their customers’ personal privacy versus public health.
Most recently, in September 2021, Apple decided to delay operating systems updates that included features to fight child sexual abuse. While many praised Apple, others worried that Apple’s new features risked undermining the privacy of all users.
As each of these situations unfolded, Apple CEO Tim Cook had to consider both his responsibilities to global governments and society, as well as to Apple’s customers, employees, and shareholders. Harvard Business School senior lecturer Henry McGee and professor Nien-hê Hsieh discuss the tension between privacy and safety in their cases, “Apple: Privacy vs. Safety” (A), (B), and (C).
Cold Call