Clash of the Titans: Government vs. Big Tech Over Your Data

TLDR/Key Points

Data are essential to civilization
Governments historically gathered and protected data to preserve power and security
Today the best data are owned by private sector Big Tech, threatening government domain 
Many legal and legislative actions by governments against Big Tech are about data control
The user base must use their purse and ballot power to optimize their best interests

In the Beginning There Was Darkness
As Microsoft’s Brad Smith points out in Tools and Weapons: The Promise and Peril of the Digital Age, ‘Civilization has always run on data’. These data have been largely observational; weather patterns, seasonal relationships to food sources, monitoring threats, like rival neighbors. With language, observational data became both cumulative and trans-generationally transmissible, making it an even more powerful agent of progress. With formal settlement and the rise of civilization, not only were observational data essential, they were increasingly applied towards prediction, particularly for early threat identification, whether internal or external, natural or belligerent. The survival, not only of leadership, but of civilization itself depended on accurate early warning based on the inference of observational data. 
Along the way, data also became controlled and restricted. Only certain persons or classes were permitted privileged data. As Rutger Bregman et al point out in Humankind: A Hopeful History, this had the twin benefits of concentrating power, and providing the element of surprise in threat mitigation. A longstanding agency became a formal profession of spies and secrets, to which only an inner leadership circle was privy. The leader cum sovereign or state, alone, had dominion over these privileged data at pain of death. 
Suddenly See More (…Showed Me I Can)
Lyrics from “Little Shop of Horrors”
Despite the advent of the free press, privileged data remained an essential asset, and the exclusive domain, of the sovereign power. Until it did not. In 1953, Arthur C Clarke, In Childhood’s End, predicted the creation of a personal computing device that one would carry around and would store all of one’s data and important information. The rise of personal computing, particularly the iPhone, the internet and the creation of the worldwide web not only made this so, it took things to a whole new level. Big Tech, including Apple and MS, social media, media conglomerates, online retailers (Amazon) and others began to concentrate vast amounts of data that were never before concentrated either in such multi-national swathes or of such multi-sectoral nature. 
Unlike the relatively static, limited and periodically updated data obtained by governments (eg census, tax revenue), these data were dynamic and updated in realtime. As Brad Smith argues, cloud computing then concentrated these data at a scale and level of detail never before achieved in human history, with redundancy. These were ‘big data’.   
More importantly, these data permitted analytic disciplines, like social mapping and engineering, at global scale. Indeed, some argue that governments can now apply machine learning algorithms to such data to identify vulnerabilities and threats to both themselves and their rivals, and that this underlies the driving force behind state sponsored hacks on big data stores. This could elevate prediction of threats and outcomes to a level of precision that not even the Mentats of Frank Herbert’s Dune could rival. How could any government resist such power?
We wants it! We needs it! We must have the Precious! 
Gollum, The Lord of the Rings – JRR Tolkien
If knowledge is power (scientia potentia est), as Thomas Hobbes penned in Leviathan in 1668, then the possessor of such data as these cloud sources contain could possess ‘ultimate power’, and if harnessed and controlled, would perhaps possess the one power ‘to rule them all’. However, there is one  wrinkle. The state does not own these data; they are in the servers of separate private sector enterprises. Irrespective of the style of government, this presents an irresistible target, if for no other reason than competition with other states, and the disadvantage that might accrue if those states get it first.
For liberal democracies, and otherwise open societies, there are the checks and balances, not only between branches of government, but between the distinct domains of the public sector and the free market in which the private sector resides, as well as the balancing test, if civil order is to be preserved as the product of representative government, between sovereign security and public safety vs individual liberty and privacy. For more authoritarian states, the calculus may be simpler, but no less fraught with peril and the threat of delegitimacy and overthrow, as we have seen when populations conclude that authoritarian governments have over-reached or over-stayed.  
The Power of Narrative
The challenge is how to gain access to personal data, freely granted to the private sector, without alarming the public and creating a backlash. Channelling Friedrich Nietzsche, a hero requires a villain. A common enemy is a socially mobilizing and unifying factor, even more so if that villain is opposed to law enforcement, the rule of law, the nation, the people or even common decency and common sense. Governments of every stripe have been adroit at crafting narratives that create villains foreign and domestic, whether individuals, populations and smaller groups, corporations or industries, not to mention other governments. 
One approach is to identify a grievance, often around something costly, obligatory and shared, like fees for access to goods and services, and then link that grievance to an identified enemy. Another is to identify a shared harm, such as criminal or terrorist acts, (child pornography, human trafficking, mass killings) and identify an entity as an obstruction to preventing them. Repeat that narrative; loudly and often. Evidence is optional, but circumstantial evidence will suffice. 
Once the public accepts the narrative as fact, then make a show of intervening on behalf of the people. Identify the targeted object (in this case, access to user data) as what will relieve their suffering and make them safe. Repeat this until it is echoed in the press and by the common folk. If the entity is too powerful to compel, then weaken it. Most often, its most vulnerable spot will be its revenue stream. If the law is an impediment, rescue the people by changing the law – on their behalf. Make sure they understand that by diminishing that revenue stream, the people will benefit (lower costs – who doesn’t love that?). This tack will almost invariably precipitate back channel discussions, concessions and compromises with said entity. 
Then, in public view, and with the full-throated support of the people, wrest control of the objective, in this case, access to the people’s data, for the good of the people. Graciously bow to public applause. Rinse, and repeat. 
Mind you, a government need not seize possession of the data, indeed smart governments will not. Rather, they only require access to it as needed, on their terms, whether or not publicly disclosed.
Next: Past Is Prologue, Again
Past Is Prologue, Again
This pattern, and variations of it, have played out in public view across the planet. Apple, Google (Alphabet), Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and a variety of others (eg Alibaba, Twitter) have each, individually or in batches, been the recipient of this treatment. Each has been in the firing line for alleged malfeasance, including but not limited to anticompetitive behavior (acquisitions like WhatsApp), price fixing (Books), access fees and payment systems (App Store), price gouging (online stores, App Store), punitive practices toward suppliers, retailers (Amazon), and substandard treatment of employees (all). We are seeing governments, whether the executive, judicial or legislative branches, in realtime target Big Tech’s revenue stream, notably but not exclusively Apple’s, over anticompetitive practices (eg the App Store or acquisitions) or for violating sovereign law (the storage of data from Chinese citizens on non-Chinese servers), with threats of fiscal retaliation, including the possible suspension of the right to conduct business in specific settings (Russia and requiring apps from Russian developers). 
This is not to say that there are not legitimate reasons for branches of the government to access public data in the private sector. Indeed, there are. Importantly, there should be transparent protocols for doing so, apart from legal due process and the serving of warrants. The issue is rather the means to getting there, and the resultant balance of power in that relationship, itself a test of liberal democracy and representative government that acts on behalf of the people in their best interests. Autocratic and authoritarian settings require less justification, and will tend to appeal to grievance, nationalism and patriotism, with little explanation otherwise.
Importantly, this is also not to argue that there is some vast, global conspiracy amongst nation states to access personal data. There is not, nor is one required. Indeed, the interests of many of these nations are diametrically opposed, and in some cases, have created active hostilities. Rather, data are essential to civilization and the governments that run it. Never in history have these governments been faced with entities that have amassed more and better quality of realtime data on people. This creates a de facto rival power by virtue of such ownership within that government’s dominion. This is unprecedented. The fact that competitive and hostile rivals might seize these data to advantage transforms this into an existential threat, and an imperative to act. No conspiracy necessary. 
The question hangs as to how best to resolve this, ensure protection, and find an appropriate balance. This will differ by government, setting and the host country for each Big Tech company. 
Riposte or Feint
In response, Big Tech are not without defenses and options. In some cases, companies have withdrawn from certain settings, or are expanding their options in other countries. In other cases, they have simply contested these moves in courts of law. 
More recently, we are seeing, notably from Apple, strategic threat mitigation. The use, by law enforcement and legislators, of child pornography and sexual predation as a wedge to create encryption backdoors to communication software, prompting Apple’s response with their proposed CSAM technology, that specifically addressed this vulnerability, but without offering a decryption key, is a case in point. 
Make no mistake, this is a contest in which stillness and inaction are a not an option; as these contestants are not evenly matched. Governments make the rules, decide fairness, penalties and punishment. Big Tech can only win, or at least survive intact, by being smart, strategic and nimble, which may require moving faster than the user base can follow; another form of risk.
The rise of the tech giants, their global reach and acquisition of massive and unique data sets, creates a novel and irresistible resource for both domestic and foreign governments, whether allied, competitive or hostile. We are not at equipoise on the domain or rules of access to these data. Governments appear to be responding by applying financial pressure on Big Tech, combined with threats of new legislation, in order to compel compliance. Tech companies continue to counter and parry with limited concessions and solutions to government-stated problems. Most appear to be preserving their business models. Apple is unique, in that the company advertises its protection of user privacy, and has fought for this in court. As a result, user expectations of Apple are higher than for many other companies. 
Conclusion
The argument is that many recent legal skirmishes over anticompetitiveness reflect a broader objective of controlled access to user data. And while there are legitimate issues raised by governments against all of these companies, the user community needs to be vigilant against being played against their better interests. 
In the end, this is not about a utopian ideal, but about achieving and preserving an optimal balance between societal safety and security versus individual liberty and privacy. This requires, and can only be sustained by an alert, educated and engaged electorate. You. At the purse, and at the ballot. 
Importantly, that balance will remain dynamic and shift at the speed of innovation and product release. Some continuing self-education will be necessary.
Tags: Apple, Big Data, Big Tech, government, Machine Learning