Apple Direct Quotes

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

Opposing Apple’s argument, the F.B.I emphasizes national security. With the disposal of the information stored on the phone, the U.S. Government could in theory prevent pending terrorist attacks. Regretfully, there is no way to ensure that the “backdoor” that would be used in this case, would only be used once. In his open letter, Tim Cook illustrates his regard to the plan:

Carefully Read the Newsela article, “U.S. wants to peek inside iPhone but Apple holding up the shield of privacy”

The two issues illustrated above are underscored by Apple’s own statement provided during deliberations about the law. Their primary argument holds that companies put in this position would be willfully watering down their products’ effectiveness and misleading consumers. Their primary concern is as follows: “The creation of backdoors and intercept capabilities would weaken the protections built into Apple products and endanger all our customers” (Bloomberg Reporter 2016). By designing their products to conform to the requirements of the IPA, they argue, they would be willingly providing avenues for hackers to circumvent the encryption in place (Paletta 2015).

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

Driven by increased concerns about government surveillance and consumer privacy, the technology industry has accelerated the deployment of advanced encryption technology for consumers and businesses. Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook has said that his company won’t even be able to comply with court subpoenas involving its iMessage

On the evening of February 17, 2016, the phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters was found. The phone was still in working condition but could not be accessed because of security measures that could potentially wipe all the data on it. A reporter from the New York Times, Mike Isaac, informs on the situation in depth, writing how, being a potentially huge piece of evidence, the court demanded that the company that made the phone, Apple, create a means to either bypass or remove the encryption on it so the FBI could access the phone’s contents. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, has refused to do this, stating that “No reasonable person would find [it] acceptable” to create a technique that threatens the security of others.

Mr. Cook confirmed, in the interview with David Muir, that there is indeed a precedent, “Millions of Americans had their credit card information stolen last year [...] the smartphone that you carry probably has more information about you than any other devices, so millions customers could get hurt.” On the other hand, the FBI is proposing the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority. Based on “Legal Information Institute” from Cornell University of Law School, the All Writs Act means “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” If the government can demand Apple to unlock a customer’s iPhone using the All Writs Act, it would have the power to authorize Apple to build surveillance software to intercept private conversations, and even access health records without an individual’s knowledge. Apple does not only care about privacy, but also about public safety. Apple has provided the FBI all the information on the phone that it could early in the investigation; they also suggested that the FBI connect the phone to a familiar network so the phone would be able to backup to iCloud. However, the FBI directed the county to reset the iCloud password, which inhibits the phone to backup any information to the iCloud. If one of the hackers knew what the new software could do, he or she could easily hack into anyone’s phone. Although Mr. Cook found out about the lawsuit through the media rather than personally, he mentioned that Apple is still doing everything to help the FBI in different ways to find more information on Farook’s

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.

And next in the news, Apple opposes judge 's order to hack San Bernardino shooters iPhone, calling the directive “an overreach by the U.S. government”. A public letter, signed by Apple CEO Tim Cook and published Tuesday, warns that complying with the order would entail building "a

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.

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

I strongly believe that Apple is doing the ethical thing of not allowing the FBI to change their OS from what it is because it goes against people’s right to privacy. Yes, the intent is to protect against terrorism, but in reality, humans go too far when they have the ability to gain knowledge on something they are interested in. To elaborate, without

Ever since the cloudy day on September 11, 2001, when two planes crashed into the twin towers, the United States government has been cracking down on security. The Patriot Act, passed October 26, 2001, was an effort by the United States government to ‘crack down’ on terrorism. The act removed several legal barriers that blocked or restricted law enforcement, intelligence, and defense agencies from storing data about possible terrorist threats and collaborating together to respond to them. The Patriot Act was supposed to make United States citizens feel more secure but in reality it had the opposite effect. Around 2013, when confidential NSA documents were leaked it was found that several government agencies had used the guise of the Patriot Act to monitor millions of United States citizens. In fact, it was found out by several civil liberties groups that the Patriot Act applies to more than just terrorist acts. For example, Title II of the Patriot Act allows government agencies to tap telephone lines and permits the interception of messages that may be relevant to a criminal investigation. Further, the act allows authorities to provide access to any tangible thing(books, records, papers, etc). Today, March 2, 2016, fifteen years after the government was given permission to spy on most of its citizens, the government is trying to spy on all Apple iPhones through the use of a code cracking software.

The recent case between the FBI and Apple brought a worldwide ethical dilemma into the public eye, and it could have detrimental effects to the entire tech industry. The FBI wanted Apple to create backdoor access to encrypted data on one of San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, and Apple refused just as many other large tech companies such as Amazon and Microsoft are doing nowadays. This situation creates the ethical dilemma of whether the government should have complete access to all encrypted data, and how consumers will react knowing their private data is not actually private.