Consequently, even if there is some kind of Plan B for worst-case situations, there is a predisposition to hastily roll out the alternative plan to handle the situation in the misdirected sense of confidence of having a plan.
A case in point is the recent Apple v FBI imbroglio. Most readers might know about it, however, to encapsulate, FBI wanted Apple’s help to hack an iPhone belonging to a person of their interest. Apple declined, citing data security and customer privacy.
Granted that security and data privacy are paramount to a customer and that they are mandatory, if not differentiating, features in today’s connected world. But, if the executives at Apple had only thought through the scenario they could have turned this into a big win for them without losing any credibility, rather than being seen as stonewalling with customary justifications. It seems counter-intuitive, but how?
Let’s say that Apple agreed to help the FBI as a special case by providing knowhow and resources to crack the phone to access the critical data. If the exercise didn’t succeed, Apple would have come out if this smelling of roses. It is like “hey, we helped the government, but the security on the phone is so good that even we couldn’t crack it”. Result – the government is thankful for the cooperation and iPhone users feel secure.
On the other hand, if they did manage to hack into the phone, Apple would still have come out if this smelling of roses. It is like “the data on the phone is so secure that it took experts with specific privileges, under special circumstances to crack it”. ”. Result – the government is happy for the help and iPhone users feel secure in the comfort that their phone cannot be randomly hacked.
Instead, what has happened is that the federal agency has managed to access the phone data without Apple’s help. And Apple wants to know how they did it and could they share if a new vulnerability was found in iOS by the FBI and its partner! Arguably, it has left users wondering about the security of their phone.