Would You Trust Your Government with Your Data?

On the morning of 2 December 2015, employees of the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health arrived at a Regional Center to celebrate a work Christmas party. As they lined up for coffee, nobody noticed one of the county health inspectors, Syed Rizwan Farook, slipping out of the event. He returned, however, at around 11am with his wife, Tashfeen Malik. Dressed in black combat gear and carrying assault rifles, the couple entered the building and sprayed 85 rounds across the conference room. Fourteen people were killed and another twenty-one were injured.

The shots triggered the fire alarm, setting off the sprinklers as people dove for cover and waited an interminable six minutes for the police to arrive and begin evacuating the building. In the process, a bag was found that housed several undetonated explosive devices. Farook and Malik had meanwhile escaped in a black SUV, though they made it only to the nearby city of Redlands, where a car-chase with the police ended in a shoot-out. Both Farook and Malik were killed. Some 2,400 unused rounds of ammunition were found in their car, and later, a store of bombs, weapons, and ammunition were discovered at their home.

Initially, the motive for the attack was unclear. No terrorist group took credit, and neither Farook nor Malik were known to the FBI. The couple did have ties to radicalised individuals, however. The FBI began to investigate the shooting as a potential act of terrorism, but were hindered by a lack of evidence. With no firm leads, Farook’s government-issued iPhone became the focus of investigations.

Frustratingly, there was a gap of a few months between when the last iCloud backup – to which the FBI had access – was performed and the day of the attack, meaning that there was some data stored only on the phone. Investigators could not access this as the device was locked with a passcode. Too many failed attempts and the phone would automatically wipe all data stored on it. In February 2016, the FBI obtained a court order requiring Apple to write custom software that would enable officials to bypass the passcode. Apple refused, igniting a heated debate about personal privacy, state coercion and national security.

The FBI argued that Apple was obstructing an investigation with national security implications. Apple countered that to capitulate to the court order would set a dangerous precedent, auguring in state surveillance and the erasure of personal privacy. Within twenty-four hours of the court order, Apple CEO Tim Cook posted an open letter, explaining that the government was asking Apple to undermine its own security advancements, which had been developed to protect its customers against cybercriminals. He further warned that this would not be a once-off case. “The implications of the government’s demands are chilling,” wrote Cook.

A legal battle ensued between the FBI and Apple, but before it came to a head, the FBI announced that a third party had assisted it to unlock the phone. Apple subsequently updated its software, ensuring that this method could not be used again on its iPhones.

Nine years later, Apple has once again found itself in battle with a government over the issue of personal privacy. Invoking the Investigatory Powers Act (2016), in January 2025 the British government issued Apple with a “technical capability notice”, ordering the company to create a “back door” that will grant the state access to encrypted cloud storage data. This, on the basis that it will better enable them to gather evidence to secure prosecutions against criminals, terrorists, and child abusers.

Broad criticism was immediate. “If implemented, the directive will create a dangerous cyber-security vulnerability in the nervous system of our global economy.” stated Meredith Whittaker, president of American non-profit organisation Signal Foundation.

There is a strong argument that Apple should allow law enforcement access to iPhone cloud storage data to keep us safer from criminals and terrorists. This is especially true at this point in history in which ideological conflict has been massively amplified by sociopathic TV personalities, outright autocratic leadership, and unelected billionaires derailed from liberal values by an extreme version of capitalism. Given that the FBI is currently being desiccated by the president of the United States, the risk of a terror attack on US soil, or anywhere else for that matter, is orders of magnitude greater now than it was before.

The Trump administration has in a very haphazard manner in a matter of weeks, undermined the US Treasury payment systems by granting access to Elon Musk’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, paused all foreign development aid and demolished USAID, threatened extensive global trade tariffs, and withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organisation. Never mind suggesting that Gaza should be handed to the US to become a new Riviera of the Middle East. The world is undeniably a more dangerous place. Surveillance of terrorist activity is surely paramount?

However, giving the state access to the cloud is to truly open Pandora’s Box – how long will it be before we find ourselves no better off than Chinese citizens living under the totalitarian rule of the CCP?

Are you comfortable with allowing your government to access your data, in such a manner that they do not even have to inform you when you are under investigation?

Following the September 11^th, 2001, attacks on America, any argument to protect privacy was overwhelmed by the need for market conduct regulation, in which banks were coerced to build sophisticated anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism surveillance systems into their architectures. But, twenty-four years later, giving up one’s privacy completely, not only one’s bank records, surely relies on a high degree of trust in the governments who will be accessing our data.

The problem is that our governments have broken our trust.

If I am resistant to sharing my data, if my trust has been eroded, then I imagine that many others too will resist surveillance state apparatus. And that, paradoxically, makes the world an even more dangerous place.

By David Buckham

David Buckham is founder and CEO of Johannesburg-based international management consultancy Monocle Solutions and author of 6 published books.