Did Facebook have information that could have saved an Israeli’s life? Why didn’t they share it?

It is the law in many countries to come to the aid of a person in mortal danger if it is within an individual’s power to do so.

But does this law apply to technology companies like Facebook (FB), Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG)? If these companies possess information that can save a life or lives, is it ethical or legal for them to withhold it in the name of privacy?

On Friday, Israel Hayom and The Jerusalem Post simultaneously published a report by investigator Steve Emerson in which he claimed that Facebook had access to information that could have saved an Israeli soldier’s life.

On July 20 of this year, Hamas claimed to have kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Shaul Oron, and subsequently hacked into his Facebook page.

“In hacking Shaul’s Facebook page,” wrote Emerson, “Hamas may have inadvertently given away the location of the terrorists who had Shaul or his body. That’s because whenever a Facebook account is accessed, Facebook’s servers would automatically keep a record of the Internet Protocol address where the account was accessed. IP addresses are leased, which then can provide a geographic location of the IP address where the Facebook account was hacked.”

Israel made an urgent appeal to the FBI. Emerson claims, to order Facebook to release this information. The FBI agreed, but then an order came down from on high—possibly the attorney general’s office or higher in the administration, not to cooperate with the Israelis, says Emerson.

In a related incident on October 16, the FBI’s new director, James B. Comey, made a speech in which he lambasted technology companies for refusing to cooperate with law enforcement in life or death situations.

Life and death secrets

“Those charged with protecting our people, “ he said,  “aren’t always able to access the evidence we need to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism even with lawful authority. We have the legal authority to intercept and access communications and information pursuant to court order, but we often lack the technical ability to do so.”

Comey says that an order from a judge to monitor a suspect’s communication may amount to nothing more than a piece of paper.

“Some companies fail to comply with the court order. Some can’t comply, because they have not developed interception capabilities. Other providers want to provide assistance, but they have to build interception capabilities, and that takes time and money.”

He singles out Apple and Google’s new operating systems, where information on mobile devices and laptops would be encrypted by default.

“It’s the equivalent of a closet that can’t be opened,” he said. “A safe that can’t be cracked. And my question is, at what cost?”

It’s a very interesting question to ponder. Rather than government being all-seeing and all knowing, as suggested by Edward Snowden, in many cases governments are playing catch-up with large technology companies. Tech companies hold the keys to the vault, according to Comey, and the law does not (yet) require them to unlock it.

But do tech companies have any responsibility? If they possess information that could save lives, is it ethical to keep it under wraps?  Tech companies hold a lot of power. The question is, what is their responsibility?