Apple Vs Fbi Essay

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.

Subsequently, I think Apple should try and use the patch method to unlock the iPhone for several reasons, instead of not unlocking it at all. The iPhone's owner is a gunman, a shooter, and it would seem quite wrong to not unlock it to figure out anything, like who was this person, what are his plans, what made him like this. Technically, Apple has the right to refuse to unlock the iPhone, but we need to solve this issue, and protect ourselves from future terrorists to use iPhones. There is another problem, and it is that if Apple decides to work with the FBI to break the laws just to break into their own iPhones, other foreign governments can use Apple to break into iPhones from owners that don’t live in the US. This means that Apple will have to work more with others and give up time to use the iPhone. I think Apple should have some time to unlock the iPhone just for the FBI so they can have access to the terrorist’s plans. Terrorism in the US is a very critical problem and is very serious and Apple will need to solve the way to unlock the iPhone without giving up privacy and security to the FBI. Apple will need to find a way to make the iPhone unlock without the FBI knowing how to and other foreign governments also. If Apple does not succeed to unlock the iPhone, or gives up both privacy and security, then having an iPhone really looks like there is no specialty or difference between Android phones. If Apple decides to unlock the iPhone just for the FBI, this

Federal supervision of electronics has been prevalent since the 60's, and has become increasingly intrusive with laws such as the ECPA and USA PATRIOT Acts. These laws authorized the legal surveillance of foreigners, and Americans abroad. However, with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requiring communication companies to provide backdoors for government use, agencies such as the National Security Agency have abused their powers in secrecy. More recently, Edward J. Snowden released NSA files that revealed the agency to illicitly engage in unwarranted surveillance of Americans both abroad and at home. (Introduction to Domestic Surveillance: Current Controversies)

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

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

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.

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

Meanwhile law officials are saying that the quality of their equipment to get into gadgets are low.But then Apple says that opening the phone leads to other problems like violation of the customer’s rights and privacy. Apple has protested that it is not right for the F.B.I. to go behind their back and have a third party join and decrypt the password.Apple also said that the government had forced them to try to open it for them and or to create a new way to unlock Mr.Farook’s phone and considered it to be forced speech and viewpoint of discrimination which violates the first amendment.The Apple had also said that the government had violated Apples Fifth Amendment right which says they allowed to dothings without the governments comments.They

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.

In the year of 2015 there was an attack in San Bernardino, California that was deemed as a terrorist attack. Since: this attack was deemed a terrorist attack, the FBI investigated the scene and was able to find one of the terrorist’s cell phone which was an iPhone. The FBI thought of going through the information in the cell phone, but they could not access the information until they found a backdoor into the iPhone. Because the FBI found a way to go through the information stored in the iPhone, they believe that they also should be able to go through computers, other cell phones and other devices by using backdoors for investigational purposes. The purpose of this essay is to define a backdoor, and discuss if, backdoors are beneficial, and if law enforcement should be able to use backdoors for investigations.

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

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.

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.

American Federal Agencies like the NSA (National Security Agency) and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) have tried to mandate a back door or master-key to company products such as the iPhone, to monitor everyone that owns one of the products. Government organizations sometimes snoop a bit too much. When the FBI was holding a terrorist iPhone, they requested that apple makes a new operating system where the FBI had a backdoor to access the system at any time. Apple declined, stating that what the FBI was asking for would amount to a master-key designed to access any iPhone at any time. Someone