Apple Phones And Privacy

Primarily, the FBI wants to protect American citizens from malicious threats, in this case terrorism. Unlocking the iPhone in question could give extremely important information, not only to the case itself, but to potential terrorist agents worldwide. The San Bernardino killers may have contacted others for assistance, and the FBI will not be able to bring them to justice without aid from Apple. The FBI cannot protect the American citizens, nor can it investigate crimes aided by the use of Apple’s electronic devices (in this case, an iPhone 5c) without Apple’s

Rebuttal: the FBI can hack the phone on their own if they please, but a backdoor would make it easier. Apple is therefore not obstructing the investigation, but pushing back against the overreach of government agencies.

What started as a private issue spread like wildfire as it was made public by Apple. This problem has created two sides that ask whether Apple should have the right to not oblige or if the FBI has the power to force them to make these means a reality. This specific issue opens up a greater problem that takes it outside the US and affects anyone with any kind of technology connected around the world: should the government have the right to access information on your phone? It’s a seemingly yes or no answer, but the precedent this situation will create makes it a lot more important as it can determine what the future of privacy on technology is like. When looking at the facts, rationality, and emotions that stem from whether the government should have the means

Apple has the right to resist the FBI’s pressure to hack Syed Farook’s phone. Some say that Apple had no right to resist because the FBI are working on a case, but to hack into someone’s phone breaking their privacy, which is violating the Fourth Amendment. On Google, the fourth amendment clearly states, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The amendment does not say that third parties can force people to help aid the Federal Government. The FBI has no right to invade on Farook’s life. Some again say, yes they do, they are trying to protect Americans from future bombings, shootings, and any other types of terrorism. However, this may be true, it

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.

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

After the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, the United States government, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in a dispute with the technology company Apple. The FBI seized the iPhone of Syed Farook who along with his wife Tasfeen Malik killed 14 people and injured 22. Farook and his wife were then killed in a shootout with the police. However, the FBI could not bypass the security code that Farook placed on his phone, and access information within the device. Therefore, the bureau requested that Apple create a backdoor which is a mean of access to a computer program that bypasses the programs security measures. Apple refused to comply with the bureau’s request as the company argued that it would jeopardize the privacy of their customers and is an overreach of state power. Thus, the conflict was going to be decided legally, until the FBI canceled the first court hearing with Apple. The FBI was able to unlock Farook’s phone without Apple’s help through a third party company. But the government’s actions set in place a dangerous precedent. By creating a back door, the government is able to access information on any Apple device and has weakened the company’s cyber security. To prevent further legal disputes, Congress and the president should create a modern law that can balance the interests of national security and privacy in the 21st century.

Apple has satisfied the warrant issued by the government to the best of their ability. There is an implied social contract between citizens of the United States that living in a liberal democracy; one must give up some freedoms for the public safety of all. However, the FBI is asking for the exact opposite from Apple by asking them to give up the freedom of one iPhone that can potentially harm the freedom of millions of iPhones. The magistrate on behalf of the federal government issued a warrant on Apple to give up the data stored on an iPhone by hacking into the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter. Case law is on the government side with Smith v. Maryland, which there is no expectation of privacy for information given to third parties. The courts have issued warrants on third parties before, and the data contained by these third parties had to be turned over. But Apple does not have the data the government is looking for, and the government knows this. The government is trying to force Apple to create software to get into iPhone. The warrant to search the phone is valid, the government has the phone, there is no prohibition from searching the phone, and Apple is not holding data from the phone. The warrant has been satisfied. The shooter no longer has an expectation of privacy. However, all other Apple iPhones and product user besides the San Bernardino shooter does have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And that is why Apple never created a decryption key for their

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

Tim Cook in “ Apple Letter To Its Customers argues that if Apple creates a backdoor to the iPhone it will help the FBI, but take away their customer's privacy and security. Tim Cook uses metaphors and repetition to convey his message. Tim Cook uses metaphors of the key to help the reader understand how complicated the back door of the iPhone is. For example the passage says “It would be equivalent of a master key capable of opening

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

Privacy is was too precious to trust in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I trust Tim Cook fully on this, and his words speak to me greater than the representatives of the Bureau. In an open letter to Apple Users Tim Cook addresses the issue at hand and in this letter he states "While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products" (Cook 2016). The requests that the FBI are making are simply wrong, and could lead to more problems. While the FBI may want to stop a terrorist they shouldn't force Apple for create something which could jeopardize other users.

While the stated intentions of the FBI are well meant, the backlash from the public suggests that both Apple and the people are concerned about violations of privacy. While the FBI claims to want the access just to search the suspects’ phones, it is believed that they could then use that information to hack into others. Another current news event that is putting the government in a negative light is the coverage of the upcoming elections. Because most of the coverage tends to be negative, candidates involved in the current campaign as well as current politicians are being cast in a less than favorable light, and at this point many people are having a difficult time deciding which candidate to vote