Apple vs.

FBI is a sign of a
dangerous divide
By Mike Rogers and Jason Grumet

Story highlights

Washington needs Silicon Valley in fighting terrorism,

and the private sector still has to work through the
business impact, say Mike Rogers and Jason Grumet
Authors: We should be able to find avenues of
alignment within the privacy and security debate

CNN Commentator Mike Rogers is the former chairman of the

House Intelligence Committee, and Jason Grumet is president
of the Bipartisan Policy Center. The opinions expressed in this
commentary are theirs.
(CNN)Apple's decision to fight a court order to unlock an
iPhone belonging to one of the terrorists involved in the San
Bernardino, California, attack last year is just the latest
example of the dangerous divide between Washington and
Silicon Valley.
The FBI was unable to access the encrypted smartphone
to map the terrorist's connections to ISIS and find any other
accomplices in the United States, so the government sought
help from the tech giant. While details of this specific phone
are not known, the iPhone in general has built-in security

features that will erase the phone's data after a certain number
of unsuccessful log-in attempts.
This case highlights how Washington needs the private sector
in the fight against terrorism and how the private sector still
has to work through questions about the effect to its business
when helping the government. We must find a way to bridge
this gap so we can protect both our citizens and the economic
interests of our technology sector while adhering to our
founding principles.
In rejecting the court order, Apple CEO Tim Cook stated, "We
have done everything that is both within our power and within
the law to help," adding, "but now the U.S. government has
asked us for something we simply do not have, and something
we consider too dangerous to create."
What is truly dangerous is the divide between our security
needs and the economic interests of industry.
Read More
It is time for Washington and Silicon Valley to realize that it is
to their benefit to get along and work together on shared
interests. Bridging this gap is not just an exercise in
overcoming differences; it is critical for America's continued
international competitiveness, economic growth and national
security. The U.S. economy will not grow if the nation is
unable to protect its assets.
For example, everyone can agree that preventing hackers from
infiltrating networks to steal intellectual property or personal
information is imperative. No one is going to argue against
stopping terrorists from recruiting online and hiding other
activities on the Internet. The government and private sector
must become more closely aligned if we are to continue to

protect our country from growing threats in an increasingly

technological world.
Similarly, encryption advocates have a strong case; as
encryption is necessary to protect political dissidents in
authoritarian countries and civil liberties for everyone. The
American people and the business sector clearly need
reassurances that their data will be protected from illegal
intrusions, whether from digital theft by criminals or
unwarranted access by government officials.
Privacy and security are not mutually exclusive, nor are the
aims of business and government. There are, or should be,
legal mechanisms to provide for both.
Sadly, the debate has reached a stalemate with each side
retreating behind their ramparts and raising their drawbridges.
It has been less of a dialogue than one side "talking at" the
other, issuing demands or expectations without offering much
in return.
The current struggle between the FBI and Apple is a clear
example of how this distrust is becoming a vicious cycle. By
turning to court orders to compel Apple's cooperation, the FBI
is perpetuating Silicon Valley perceptions of the government as
a heavy-handed bully. But by refusing to comply, Apple is
making it more likely that Congress will resort to the very sort
of blunt force regulation that the technology industry fears the
most.
It will take time for the government and Silicon Valley to find
an agreeable balance, but it can be done.
An alignment of interests can be found if both are able to sit
down and engage in a meaningful dialogue that seeks to
resolve challenges rather than impose the will of one over the
other. By working for a basic set of principles, from the broad

to the specific, we should be able to find avenues of alignment

within the privacy and security debate.
Washington and Silicon Valley need to get along to navigate
the shoals of government and economic interests to ensure they
don't collide but rather find a mutually beneficial way forward.
Otherwise, the growing divide between the government and
technology industry may become an unbridgeable chasm
between the East and West coasts. And that would
unnecessarily endanger both the security and prosperity of our
country.