96
(Microsoft 2018b). IBM, as another example, were among the first companies to sign the EU Data Protection Code of Conduct for Cloud Service
Providers (IBM 2017).
5.4.1.4 Warriors
Warrior CSPs highlight privacy as a societal issue and may even revolt
against laws in order to support it. CSPs who are positioned in this orientation demonstrate privacy behaviors that measure high on justice, however unlike those of the Citizen, their behaviors may also measure low on
control. In terms of philanthropic privacy, Warrior CSPs may lobby government for increased privacy for individuals, knowing it will increase
organizational costs, reduce shareholder returns and/or marginalize certain stakeholders. They may stake claims to privacy, to such a degree that
they will breach laws if they feel that those laws compromise social or
democratic freedoms.
Apple for example, in 2015 and 2016, refused to comply with, and
challenged, at least 12 orders issued by the FBI compelling Apple to
enable decryption of phones involved in criminal investigations and prosecutions. It could be argued that Apple monetize ‘privacy’ as part of their
brand, however in the US they did not garner widespread support for
their decision and at that time 51% of American smartphone users were
against Apple’s decision, while only 38% supported Apples stance (Pew
2016). Warriors may demonstrate less control than those in the Citizen
orientation, however in its place they introduce strong privacy governance
and accountability structures. In Apple for instance, any collection of customer data requires sign-off from a committee of three “privacy czars”
and a top executive (Reuters 2016).
Cisco, as another example, recognized that their systems could be used
in a manner contrary to their values and state “Cisco technologies are used
by government agencies to promote public safety, but the same technology can
be used for surveillance that would violate individuals’ privacy”. (Cisco
2018c). Cisco issued a position statement opposing government backdoors and opposing attempts to prohibit public disclosure about new surveillance capabilities demanded by governments (Cisco 2018b). Cisco
therefore retain a high level of control to ensure that their product cannot
be misused but also balance this control with a commitment to “build our
products on the open, global standards we believe are critical to overcoming
V. LYONS
(Microsoft 2018b). IBM, as another example, were among the first companies to sign the EU Data Protection Code of Conduct for Cloud Service
Providers (IBM 2017).
5.4.1.4 Warriors
Warrior CSPs highlight privacy as a societal issue and may even revolt
against laws in order to support it. CSPs who are positioned in this orientation demonstrate privacy behaviors that measure high on justice, however unlike those of the Citizen, their behaviors may also measure low on
control. In terms of philanthropic privacy, Warrior CSPs may lobby government for increased privacy for individuals, knowing it will increase
organizational costs, reduce shareholder returns and/or marginalize certain stakeholders. They may stake claims to privacy, to such a degree that
they will breach laws if they feel that those laws compromise social or
democratic freedoms.
Apple for example, in 2015 and 2016, refused to comply with, and
challenged, at least 12 orders issued by the FBI compelling Apple to
enable decryption of phones involved in criminal investigations and prosecutions. It could be argued that Apple monetize ‘privacy’ as part of their
brand, however in the US they did not garner widespread support for
their decision and at that time 51% of American smartphone users were
against Apple’s decision, while only 38% supported Apples stance (Pew
2016). Warriors may demonstrate less control than those in the Citizen
orientation, however in its place they introduce strong privacy governance
and accountability structures. In Apple for instance, any collection of customer data requires sign-off from a committee of three “privacy czars”
and a top executive (Reuters 2016).
Cisco, as another example, recognized that their systems could be used
in a manner contrary to their values and state “Cisco technologies are used
by government agencies to promote public safety, but the same technology can
be used for surveillance that would violate individuals’ privacy”. (Cisco
2018c). Cisco issued a position statement opposing government backdoors and opposing attempts to prohibit public disclosure about new surveillance capabilities demanded by governments (Cisco 2018b). Cisco
therefore retain a high level of control to ensure that their product cannot
be misused but also balance this control with a commitment to “build our
products on the open, global standards we believe are critical to overcoming
V. LYONS