Apple: Privacy vs. Safety (A)

Henry  McGee; Nien-hê  Hsieh; Sarah  McAra

Case | HBS Case Collection | March 2016 (Revised November 2017)

Apple: Privacy vs. Safety (A)

by Henry McGee, Nien-hê Hsieh and Sarah McAra

Abstract

In 2015, Apple CEO Tim Cook debuted the iPhone 6S with enhanced security measures that enflamed a debate on privacy and public safety around the world. The iPhone 6S, amid a heightened concern for privacy following the 2013 revelation of clandestine U.S. surveillance programs, employed a default encryption system that prevented both Apple and government authorities from accessing data stored on the device. Law enforcement officials warned that the encryption hindered investigations for criminal cases and international terrorism and called on Apple to build a backdoor, a way to bypass the encryption. But Cook maintained that any backdoor would compromise customers' privacy and security. In 2016, a federal judge ordered Apple to provide technical assistance to unlock the iPhone used by one of the two terrorists who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California. Apple refused to comply with the order and asked the government to withdraw its demand. As the court case unfolded, Cook considered his responsibilities to the U.S. government as well as to Apple's customers, employees, and shareholders.

Keywords: iphone; encryption; data privacy; Safety; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Mobile Technology; Civil Society or Community; National Security; Leadership; Technology Industry; Consumer Products Industry; United States;

Language: English

Format: Print

34 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

McGee, Henry, Nien-hê Hsieh, and Sarah McAra. "Apple: Privacy vs. Safety (A)." Harvard Business School Case 316-069, March 2016. (Revised November 2017.)

Beginning in 2017, technology (tech) company Google faced a series of employee-relations issues that threatened its unique culture of innovation and open communication. Issues included protests surrounding Google’s contracts with the U.S. government, restrictions of employee speech, mistreatment of contract and temporary workers, allegations of sexual misconduct and gender inequality, and claims of retaliation against labor organizing. While Google employees felt an obligation to dissent against morally questionable practices, embodying the company’s informal motto “don’t be evil,” the company struggled to respond to employees’ concerns while preserving its unique culture.

Case | HBS Case Collection | March 2015 (Revised August 2020)

Putting the Guiding Principles into Action: Human Rights at Barrick Gold (A)

Rebecca Henderson and Nien-he Hsieh

In 2010, Human Rights Watch, a well-regarded international NGO, approached Barrick Gold asserting that members of the company’s security force at the Porgera Gold Mine in Papua New Guinea had on multiple occasions raped women who were trespassing onto the mine’s waste dumps in search of gold. Subsequent investigations identified significant evidence to support the allegations, and the revelations led to broad ranging change at both Porgera and at Barrick more generally. Drawing heavily on the United Nation’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs), Barrick not only moved to make efforts to provide restitution to the women involved, but also designed and rolled out a comprehensive set of policies designed to embed the protection of human rights into the entire company. Barrick also played a central role in leading the development of an auditing and verification framework for the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (the VPs), a set of commitments embraced by most of the world’s largest extractive companies. The case provides students with an opportunity to analyze the challenges that arise from operating in environments with weak state institutions; to examine the challenges of implementing voluntary frameworks, such as the GPs or VPs, and their potential as alternatives to state institutions; to learn about the field of business and human rights; and to develop an analytic framework for evaluating the responsibilities of business leaders to society, especially from the perspective of human rights.

Keywords: human rights; business and society; Rights; Policy; Leading Change; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Business and Government Relations;

Citation:

Henderson, Rebecca, and Nien-he Hsieh. "Putting the Guiding Principles into Action: Human Rights at Barrick Gold (A)." Harvard Business School Case 315-108, March 2015. (Revised August 2020.) View Details

Cite View Details Educators Purchase