Apple California Case

The cases of Apple vs. the FBI started development on December 2nd 2016, when Syed Rizwan Farook killed 14 people in the San Bernardino shooting. The case has brought out many questions about how much power the government actually has.

The events of the San Bernardino shooting were a tragedy. 14 people were killed, and another 22 were injured when a married terrorist couple staged an attack on a Christmas party. This was an unmitigated catastrophe, but it spawned one of the most important security debates in recent memory. The FBI wanted to unlock one of the suspects phones, but were unable to do so because of security measures on the phone. The FBI wanted to brute force the password lock on the iPhone, but device would wipe itself after 10 failed attempts to unlock the iPhone. Thus, the FBI asked Apple to create an intentionally insecure iOS update, specifically for this iPhone, in order to bypass the security restrictions. Apple disagreed with the FBI, and tried to avoid helping the FBI in such a way, arguing it would undermine the purpose of security itself. Overall, Apple has the best argument, both legally and as a matter of public policy.

Now for the case that has kept the nation on the edge of their seats, we have Apple v. FBI. This has really split the nation as people are torn apart by wanting to side with the makers of their beloved iPhone or the government that has given many their freedom. This all started with a tragedy, unfortunately, the tragedy the San Bernardino shooting. After the terrorists were killed, the FBI obtained the iPhone from one of the shooters and believed that they could find more information in it. They turned to Apple in order to open up the phone, as iPhones are set to ‘self-destruct’ all data after 10 failed password attempts. Apple flat out refused. In a letter to the public sent out by Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, said, “Once the... way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.” This essentially is saying that someone could come along after the phone had been

The paper will examine the creation of back-doors for cellular devices and if that act would violate civil liberties, relating specifically to Apple and the FBI.

Apple should be forced to unlock an iPhone or not. It becomes a controversial topic during these years. Most of them are concerned with their privacy and security. Darrell Issa is a congressman and has served the government since 2001. Recently, he published “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent” in Wired Magazine, to persuade those governors worked in the Congress. It is easier to catch administrators’ attention because some of them want to force Apple to unlock the iPhone. Darrel Issa focuses on governors because he thinks they can support the law to make sure that everyone has privacy. He addresses the truth that even some of the governors force Apple to hack iPhones when they need people’s information. He considers maintaining people’s privacy as the primary purpose. He also insists that Apple should not be forced to use their information which could lead people’s safety. In “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent,” Darrell Issa uses statistics and historical evidence to effectively persuade his audience of governors that they need to consider Apple should force to hack or not because it could bring people to a dangerous situation and forget the purpose of keeping people’s privacy.

The fight between the apple and the fbi brought much controversy. Many said it was apple’s patriotic duty to help stop more potential terrorist attacks but they don’t understand the danger involved. The fbi asked apple to weaken their security system to hack into the iphone of one of the san bernardino shooter and then once they were done they could patch it up or just give access to law enforcement. But even with the weakened security it would have taken years to access the information and you can't just have certain people have access. As hackers will also get access stealing people’s personal information. And it would never end as countless law enforcement divisions have hundreds of iphones that need to be unlocked. So

tried to build a new version of iOS, it would not have Apple’s encryption key to verify it. Apple has stated that the F.B.I. could ask Verizon the network Mr. Farook’s phone was under that could be used to give the F.B.I. more information that was on the phone.The government also could ask for information from the app makers who created some of the apps that were on Mr. Farook’s phone.But Apple had said that the F.B.I. probably had already done that.Apple is most worried about is all the request that the F.B.I. could potentially ask for in the future.So the real question here is how far can the law officials go in forcing a third party to help in surveillance?Apple had said that they will continue to help law officials with their cases as they have always done and we will continue to whenever the information from their products can help and as the threats and attacks on our nation become more common and more complex. This case has raised issues which deserve a national talk about our civil liberties, and our collective security and privacy.Given how common smartphones and tablets are just means that problems with technology won’t ever smaller or

The signees concede with the government, FBI, and U.S. citizens regarding terrorism. They agree all of them “want to take aggressive steps to reduce the threat of terrorism” suggesting that the authors can see both sides of the argument so Lynch will listen to their request for an end to the FBI’s efforts to force Apple to create the software.

Eventually the court ordered for it to happened, but the Apple kept its same stance. The feud between corporations and a government is a human issue that pertains to anyone who values privacy and inalienable rights. Many argue that giving up privacy for secret is not worth it. After Brussel Attacks, citizens are angry that they are given up privacy, but their governments have not been successful in combating terrorism.These initiative are a direct violation to the Fourth Amendment which states “Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, hall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” In order to search a person there has to a probable cause to do so. The Federal government is violating this statement by invading privacy. I began to do research on the topic, and found an interesting video where an adjacent professor at Seton Hall Law, Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Fourth Amendment was created to “protect the quintessential American right of the right to be left alone”. By the FBI intervening with the software, it goes against constitutional, privacy and human rights. All the spying has been unsuccessful, because the United States continue to have attacks on the homeland. A Recent example would be the Boston Marathon bombing where hundreds were injured after the fatality. Additionally, according to a recent report from a digital analytics firm comScore reveals that of the 184 million Americans owning a smartphone, more than 4 in 10 use and iPhone. For this reason, this issue pertains to all of us. This is an issue who should concern anyone with a cell phone, laptop and etc. To a certain extent I agree with Edward Snowden that the American people should be allowed to decide whether or not they approve of these government actions. Apple should preserve our

The recent case Apple vs. FBI has raised controversy over the priorities placed on national security and personal privacy. The controversy stems from Apple’s denial of access to an iPhone involved in the orchestrating an act of terrorism. On December second, 2015, a couple in San Bernardino, California, massacred fourteen people and seriously injured twenty-two others in a terrorist attack. One perpetrator, Syed Farook, worked for the county health department and possessed a county-owned Apple iPhone 5C, which may have stored some of his recent online activity. This data could provide information surrounding the terrorist’s affiliations, motives, or background. The phone was encrypted through Apple’s operating system and the FBI has been unable to unlock the device. A court order, requested by U.S. judge Sheri Pym ruled that Apple must provide a decryption program that would grant the FBI access to the phone. Apple

After Farook and Malik were killed following their crimes, an intense legal battle broke out between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Apple. The FBI wanted the technology giant to unlock Farook’s iPhone, believing that it might contain vital information related to why he and his wife committed the act of major terrorism. Apple refused, realizing that doing so would violate the safety and privacy of their millions of customers. The situation only got more serious when a federal magistrate ordered Apple to unlock the iPhone. Interestingly, there were many cases to similar to this in the past, but none achieved near as much notoriety as this had at its climax. Part of that is because it also involves terrorism; many hope that it also

My topic for the research paper will focus on the Apple vs FBI case with the San Bernardino terrorist shootings and the FBI requesting to gain access to the killers locked phone. I will review whether the FBI has the right to gain access to the phone and if Apple has the right to not help out the FBI with gaining access to the phone. I will also bring up alternatives that the FBI could use to get into the phone. My personally opinion is I don’t have an issue with the FBI trying to gain access to the terrorist shooters phone if it will help to prevent further attacks against the United States and allies. The reason FBI officials want access to the phone is there is encrypted data in the terrorist phone and its GPS system which may hold vital

The case of Apple Vs FBI is basically the FBI trying to have Apple change their operating system (OS) in their phones so they can be encrypted if they need to be. Currently, Apple phones are set up to protect against hacking. The FBI wants to gain this access so they can stop a terrorist from being able to use mobile technology as means of harm and to gain knowledge of what the attack could be.

As we all know, there are two sides to every story. However, how do we know which side is true? Well, Apple and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are currently dealing with that very situation. In December of 2015 there was a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. According to my research, a federal judge asked Apple to assist the FBI in unlocking an iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists. As for Apple’s side of the story, Apple chief executive, Tim Cook, explained to the FBI that he felt if he showed the FBI how to unlock this phone, they would start doing it to everyone. Apple also argued that this violates due process.

The company on the forefront of this issue is Apple. After the tragic events in San Bernardino, CA on December 2, 2015, the United States FBI located an iPhone 5C belonging to one of the terrorists. The FBI, however, was unable to access the phone and formally requested Apple to unlock the device to facilitate the search for information about the killers. Apple swiftly refused and after several weeks of back and forth, the FBI filed a case against Apple (Nakashima April 2016). This case