Apple Vs Fbi Case Study

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.

Apple’s iPhones are incredibly hard to hack, that the FBI can't even get in it themselves! Annoyingly, iPhone users are in trouble because the FBI is trying to get Apple to unlock an iPhone. Frighteningly, there are extremists that use iPhones to store their information in them, and if the FBI gets their hands on them, all iPhone users will be in trouble. The problem is that they don't have the right to break into somebody’s iPhone, and Apple doesn't have the information about the gunman in their database. Unfortunately, It seems the only way the FBI will get the information of lawbreakers is if they hack into their iPhones. Apple has to allow the FBI to unlock iPhones, because, they can use the information from

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.

In December of 2015, 14 people were killed and more than 20 people were injured in one of California’s most deadly shootings in recent history. A couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire in a conference center in San Bernardino. The two were later killed in a shootout with the police. Their case didn’t end there. The FBI searched their house, in which they found much evidence to back that this was a terrorist plot. But a crucial piece of evidence which they found was Syed Farook’s iPhone 5C. In today’s society, phones contain more information about ourselves than even we can remember. Emails, messages, notes, bank details and much more can be found on our phone. So when the FBI was able to get hold of Farook’s phone, they were more than content. But there was one more hurdle in front of them: encryption. Since we have so much information on our devices today, we have to have some form of protection against people who want to steal our personal information, scammers hackers and many. Apple has done this by encrypting almost every piece of user’s private information on their devices. The FBI wants a way around this encryption so that they can retrieve important information on Farook’s iPhone. They want Apple to create a shortcut that would allow them to bypass all of the security on Farook’s phone, but Apple is refusing saying that they want to protect their user’s privacy. Is the FBI forcing Apple to create a

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

The dispute between Apple and the FBI has been one of the controversial topics since the shooting in San Bernardino. The FBI wanted Apple to help “unlock” the iPhone; however, Tim Cook, an Apple CEO, refused to provide the assistance. Mr. Cook was right about doing so because of two reasons: customers’ important information must be protected, and the FBI’s order is a dangerous precedent.

The real question here is, What kind of world do you want to live in? According to an article in Fortune Magazine one person said, “The Federal Bureau Of Investigation is creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around.” A world where national security trumps personal privacy or would you rather live in a world where we have both national security and personal privacy. Amy Goodman from Democracy Now said in a segment, “In December, Farook and his wife killed 14 and injured 22 others in San Bernardino. The two were killed in a shootout with police.” The issue is that the agency has been unsuccessful in accessing the data in the phone, an iPhone 5C. We all remember when more than 100 A-listers were targeted in a colossal hack and Apple was under fire for “breaches” in the cloud. This was iOS 7 and the hackers targeted individual accounts. Since then Apple has released iOS 8 and iOS 9. Any device running iOS 8 or later has built-in security measures such as encrypted data tied to your passcode, push notifications when someone tries to restore your iCloud data on a different device, tries to change your iCloud password instead of an email as well as an auto-erase feature that erases all data on the photo when there 10 incorrect passcode tries and a delay between passcode tries. Therefore, the FBI cannot enter the iPhone’s data by brute force. The FBI believes that there might be some important

Nobody likes anyone going through their belongings; however, the FBI (The Federal Bureau of Investigation) was trying to force Apple to go through somebody’s phone. A phone is very important to a person, it is like somebody going through your bag, house, or anything you own. The FBI should have sued the Apple corporation, because the Apple corporation has it’s right to decline the obtainability to enter into citizens private information, it is violating human rights.

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

Apple Computer Company is currently being thrown into a lawsuit in regards to specific information on a customer’s cell phone. The cell phone is known to have been used by the San Bernardino shooter last year. The information on that phone could be very beneficial to solving the case. However, privacy advocates argue Apple’s interference could be detrimental to basic human rights. Apple themselves argue writing a “master key” could cause problems with their cyber security. Not to mention the financial jeopardy it could put Apple in. The FBI counters the “master key” argument with the plea that they will only use it for one device. It’s not the use of the key Apple is worried about, it’s about the availability of it. If Apple releases information regarding the San Bernardino shooting, then it should cause a lot more problems than it could solve.

The modifications would “prevent the phone from erasing itself” and “automate the process for trying out passcode combinations…without unnecessary delay,” essentially allow the FBI to input millions of passcode combinations without the phone wiping all of its data (Lee). Additionally, the FBI only wants to “control the process, but not know how it is done,” suggesting that Apple can modify the iPhone in its own Cupertino headquarters (Lee). After the FBI filed their court order, Apple quickly notified the media of their predicament, vowed to appeal, and launched a nation-wide debate on privacy and national security.

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.

In today’s society, technology has become one of the most used and most sought after developments of the millennium. In a recent case the FBI petitioned for Apple to unlock the phone of Syed Farook, the man responsible for shooting and killing 14 people in San Bernardino, California. The FBI believed Apple should create a new software that would not erase the data from iPhones after ten failed attempts to unlock the phone. Apple replied that they had a responsibility and an obligation to protect the privacy of their customers. Supporters of Apple 's response have argued, creating a new software was not a wise decision. In the past, government agencies have been known for their abuse of power. Had Apple chosen to create a master key for this particular case, there would be no limit to government invasion of privacy. In the end Apple could have potentially lost costumers by changing the protection of their cellular products. The issue has already been raised that creating software to access one locked device could potentially open the door for hackers to invade millions of other people’s devices. I agree that Apple should not create a new software to unlock the phone because once a master lock is created there are no limitations to who or how the coding can be used.

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.