Former senior national security officials have come out in support of Apple in an antitrust case involving the app store
Former senior national security officials have come out in support of Apple in an antitrust case involving the app store
The app store practices of Apple (AAPL), defended by former senior national security officials, including two former directors of the CIA and a former director of the National Security Agency, are at the center of a critical antitrust case.
According to a court filing on Thursday, nearly two dozen security experts and former US officials argued that proposals to open Apple's mobile ecosystem — such as requiring iPhones to be able to install apps from sources other than the official app store — would jeopardize both user and national security by allowing apps to be installed from unofficial sources.
The former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden and John Brennan, as well as Mike McConnell, the former director of national intelligence and director of the National Security Agency, are among those who have signed the letter. William Evanina, a former director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, Richard Clarke, a long-time national security expert, and a variety of others with prior experience at the Pentagon, the White House, and the Department of Homeland Security are among those who have signed the friend of the court submission.
It is "inevitable" that requiring Apple devices to accept third-party apps and app stores will raise the risk of malware on iOS devices, according to the former officials. "This has a direct correlation to an increased risk to national security," says the author.
Apple is attempting to persuade a federal appeals court to uphold a lower court's ruling that the company does not have an illegal monopoly on iOS app distribution by arguing that the company does not. A close eye has been kept on the antitrust case, which was initially brought by the creators of "Fortnite," Epic Games, because it has the potential to completely upend the business models of Apple and Google, which are the world's largest app store operators.
It was Epic's position that Apple had an unassailable monopoly and that it should be allowed to operate its own app store as a means of distributing iOS applications. A legal battle is on the horizon after Epic Games publicly violated Apple's developer policies regarding in-app purchases in 2020, setting the stage for a legal battle with the company.
Several of the same proposals advocated by Epic have been enacted into law in Europe, South Korea, and the United States, among other countries. Last week, EU lawmakers announced that they had reached an agreement on a bill that could eventually require Apple to allow "sideloading," or the installation of apps from sources other than the company's own website and store. Legislation such as the Open App Markets Act seeks to achieve a similar result in the United States Congress.
"The national security implications of forced sideloading are front and center in the debates over these bills," the former national security officials wrote in their letter to Congress. "The Court is invited to intervene in the legislative process by [Epic], rather than leaving this type of regulation up to Congress to decide. A refusal to accept that invitation should be made by the Court."
A number of high-profile amicus briefs have been filed on Epic's behalf, which has aided the company. Many state attorneys general and the Department of Justice filed briefs in support of their respective states' attorneys general during the first week of January. While they did not expressly support Epic, they argued that the lower court made a number of errors in applying US antitrust law when it ruled in favor of Apple.
