Obstructing Governance by Consent

At least twice in the past year, the U.S. was Twappled.  That is, multibillion-dollar U.S. corporations used their significant position in their respective industry to obstruct the U.S. from conducting activities intrinsic to the purpose of government, but which these corporations saw as inconsistent with their own interests and ideals.  The corporations’ actions were intended not to obstruct a single government act, but to obstruct an entire activity, in one case, to preclude the U.S. from ever being able to undertake a specific form of action.  By doing so, did these U.S. corporations seek to leverage their market strength to replace terms of governance chosen by the American people with terms better suited to their individual business interests?

These two instances were, of course, first, Apple, Inc.’s marketing of iPhones with an encryption tool intended to allow anyone, regardless of motive, to hide his or her communications or data from lawful government inspection.  Apple further sought to vacate a Magistrate Judge’s order that Apple provide reasonable assistance to the FBI’s efforts to access information on an iPhone used by an individual suspected of committing an act of terrorism in the U.S that killed 14 Americans and wounded another 22 at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015.  Apple’s motion to vacate was mooted when the FBI was able to gain access to the iPhone’s information without Apple’s assistance.