In recent weeks, Apple’s refusal to introduce a security vulnerability to the iPhone for law enforcement agencies has become a cause célèbre among privacy advocates throughout the tech community. It's spurred a new debate about the authority of government to force tech companies to compromise their customers’ data privacy.

But Philip Doty, an associate professor at UT Austin’s School of Information who specializes in privacy laws and governmental information policy, worries that much of the discussion is missing the point.

One refrain suggests that forcing Apple to compromise privacy for the U.S. government will expose tech companies to similar demands from other countries, including oppressive regimes.

Another argument says the justice department’s order introduces a terrifying weapon to the market for cybercriminals.

Doty explained these positions are making strange bedfellows of Apple and consumer rights advocacy groups such as the EFF, which often criticizes the privacy practices of tech companies for their use of consumer data.

For the most part, commentary has pitted privacy against security as mutually exclusive values, obscuring, in Doty’s view, the more nuanced matters of public policy at hand.

“This issue brings so much heat, it rarely brings a lot of light,” he said. "It often takes decades or centuries to understand the characteristics and social implications of emergent technologies. There are still scholars asking the important questions of what the printing press’s full implications on society really are.”

For example, Doty said there’s a growing public policy interest in tech companies creating devices and services that compete on the level of privacy they provide.

One local tech entrepreneur watching this case closely is Aaron Benz (pictured above). Last month, he overhauled his location sharing app for iOS,

, to improve the balance of convenience with privacy and security for his users.

Ironically, he created the app because he felt he could deliver a better location sharing experience for iPhone users than Apple’s own Find Friends program. In October, he told Built In Austin that Apple’s solution didn’t focus on privacy as much as he’d like as a consumer.

“We’re trying to protect your location and data more. We don’t want to do anything without your permission,” he said. “Even when Zync Up sends an SMS to invite your contacts to share locations, the process isn’t automated, so the SMS is loaded up natively [instead of passing through Zync Up’s server].”

While developing the app, Benz learned how little regard some users have for their privacy, while others are theoretically protective of it often without understanding how their data is actually used.

“Some users think Google Maps should be able to get them somewhere without them sharing their location,” he said in an interview last week. “Users hate being prompted for any of their information. Maybe 10 percent of them read what it will be used for, and the rest are vehemently pressing ”yes“ or ”next“ to get past it, or they’re just hitting “no” reflexively, without a whole lot of thought. I think that’s extremely dangerous.”

Location data and the law

Especially in Texas, such casual privacy decisions can be costly. Under state law, police can routinely request cell phone location data from mobile carriers without a warrant.

But that may be about to change.

Two years ago, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that Texas police cannot search the cell phones of people they arrest because personal devices and data are the modern day equivalent of a citizen’s “papers and effects,” which are protected from warrantless search by the fourth amendment.

That ruling was due in part to an amicus brief filed in the case by the ACLU of Texas, the Texas Civil Rights Project and EFF-Austin, the local arm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Last year, EFF-Austin and the Texas Electronic Privacy Council (TxEPC) proposed two bills to the state legislature designed to limit the ability of police to access location information and cloud-based data from citizens’ cell phones.

Both bills would have required a warrant for requesting either data type from mobile carriers, a practice EFF-Austin Treasurer Chris Boyd said law enforcement officials currently can make at will. According to statehouse records, both bills were left to languish in committees at the end of the last legislative session.

"It was interesting to see the coalition of support we did have for it," said Boyd (pictured left), who is also co-founder and CTO of Midas Green Technologies. ”We had pretty much all of the remaining liberal democrats in the legislature, and the libertarians."

Boyd said it’s imperative to limit access to private consumer data, even for law enforcement.

“It’s none of anyone’s business where you go and what you do and who you do it with,” he said. "That kind of info can be gleaned very easily from telephone metadata and GPS."

“Once you’ve built this kind of tool, it’s very difficult to keep it in the right hands,” said Boyd, referring to back doors in mobile devices and routine data requests by law enforcement. “I personally don’t want cell phones to be routinely dumped when someone gets a traffic ticket.”

Looking ahead

For now, there are small indicators the tide may be turning in favor of privacy as public awareness and understanding of the privacy issues grow.

On Monday, a New York court supported Apple’s refusal to turn over customer data in a drug case similar to the San Bernardino order. The judge criticized the government’s sweeping interpretation and use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to compel tech companies to release customer data on the basis it’s of material relevance to criminal investigations and security matters.

Still, Benz sees users’ behavior trending toward convenience over privacy in the long run.

“Most privacy is little more than illusion,” he said “At the end of the day, it’s a balance. And that balance has shifted much more toward having less privacy and more convenience. If you really wanted to protect your information today, you’d have to be very well informed and follow very strict protocol.”

Meanwhile, EFF-Austin and TxEPC are waiting for the next legislative session to begin so they can reintroduce their bills to require warrants for location data requests.

Boyd isn’t sure how the Apple case will end — like many others, he expects the decision to be followed by many rounds of appeals — but he said he hopes to see support for Apple increase, along with public education on the issue.

“Google routinely challenges subpoenas like this, but their support for Apple has been surprisingly tepid so far,” he said. "I don’t know how this will shake out. I hope when Apple literally gets their day in court, they can explain how this request from the FBI is different from others before it, in a way a judge who sadly probably isn’t technically literate can understand.

“We already live in enough of a panopticon as it is.”

Have a tip for us or know of a company that deserves coverage? Email us a tip.