Case Summary: The Case Of Apple Vs. The FBI

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.

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

If Apple were to attempt to crack their own software, they would probably be able to do it in less time than a government agency. With Apple collaborating with all the parties it makes them look like the “good guys”, and may also give good publicity to Apple. It is a double edged sword, on one hand you may be protecting the lives of many innocent civilians, on the other hand you are risking losing your valued customers because of huge business decision. I understand Apple wants to stand their ground, they want to prove to their customer they have the best security, but at what cost are they willing to go. The case in which Jen Feng is being looked at is very different than the San Bernardino shooting case. Drug dealers who are dealing a highly addictive, deadly drug like Jun Feng should be punished. But, when it comes to the safety of not just a country but the world as a whole there lies an issue. With the scenario with Feng, if it was a corner dealer there is no point cracking into his phone. If you give that dealer a plea deal he may take, giving law enforcement a name they are looking for. However, if the FBI or local law enforcement were to arrest a high level drug dealer, searching their phone may become very beneficial and helpful. Ending the war on drugs is something society as always worked in, if it means Apple works with law enforcement I think that is reasonable. What if on Farook’s phone were more plans of terrorist attacks that were meant to be carried out? If, Apple helped crack their security we would not have to see innocent lives being taken away. The Brussels terrorist attack happened in March of 2016, if they knew about the attack through their phones, maybe they could have been prevented. Innocent lives would not have been taken, hundreds of people would have not been injured living the rest of their lives with

This significance of this decision is explained by the fact that the true problem lies ahead and will thus be affected by it. An independent security researcher Graham Cluley points out that “it will be a different technology company having demands made of it - perhaps a company which doesn't have as much of a backbone (or the legal funds) that Apple did." He expresses his concerns that in the future the FBI will encounter a situation in which they are not able to get what they want and will consequently drive software engineers to go against their ethical standards and perform tasks that would jeopardize the privacy and security of millions [8]. Apple’s insistence on privacy has protected smaller companies that might not have the finances

In this article they talk about how apple doesn't want to give a back door to the government. In my opinion i think they should

Johnson, Jon Swartz, K., Cava, M. D., & Swartz, J. (2016, March 29). FBI hacks into terrorist's iPhone without Apple. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/28/apple-justice-department-farook/82354040/

“The law, known as the PATRIOT Act, granted the federal government sweeping new powers of being able to spy on people. This included expanding the government's wiretapping authority. Wiretapping means secretly using special equipment to listen in to someone's phone conversations. The PATRIOT Act allows "roving" wiretaps. This means the FBI can target a person and tap into any device that person uses, including computers, cell phones, and regular phones.” As stated in the Associated press phone records seized, from newscurrents.com. To clarify, the patriot act has raised controversy because of how unconstitutional it is. Many people believed that it was wrong for the government to tap into phone conversations and remotely check your computer

Apple and the government have been arguing back and forth on whether Apple should make a backdoor to hack into criminals phones. Apple has resources that the government doesn’t have and they're willing to acquire them even if they go to court. Apple wants to keep people’s privacy protected and they respond with “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand”(Cook). Apple knows that if they do this then people are going to mislead the product. Tim Cook wants to keep his product up and running because if he does this then many things will go wrong such as security problems, downfall of stocks, privacy issues. Apple is doing this to keep us safe and let us have our freedom.

Judge Sheri Pym order apple last week to create the software to help FBI with the locked, county-issued Iphone used by a gunman in the mass shootings last December in San Bernardino, California. Tashfeen Malik and her husband, Syed Farook, killed 14 people at an office holiday party in an attack inspired by the Islamic State group. The government is really search for push to do by court which has not pursued to congress to do. Its government authority to help the department of justice into the device, but the laws does not provide power to control. The White House spokesman, Josh Earnest said congress should settle the issue and called government narrow, but apple has not had any decision yet, because justice department have to follow magistrate to rule before Apple had an opportunity to object. Apple argue about 1789 laws have never been used to help the government.

The Apple company is making the right decision for their company, and for the privacy of the customers. However, cracking the code could help to further investigate the San Bernardino case. Potentially leading to future terrorist attacks. Tim Cook, CEO of Apple wrote a letter to all Apple customers:

The case between the company Apple and the FBI was caused by tragic event, the FBI needed an iPhone unlocked from a know shooter of a mass shooting in California. Syed Farook worked as an environmental health specialist for the San Bernardino County in California. Farook went to a Christmas party that was hosted by his job, he later shot and killed 14 and injured 22. The probable motive to Farook rampage was told on social media belong to his wife Tashfeen Malik. Malik stated that she didn 't think a Muslim should be forced to participate in a non-Muslim holiday event. After the shooting Farook and Malik was later killed by police during a standoff. When law enforcement search Farook and his property they discovered his iPhone. The FBI

But enough was enough, and Tim Cook the CEO of Apple had drawn the line. Critics, and even the FBI argued this was a marketing strategy. But this is no mere ploy to sell more iPhones. It was high time that someone stood up for our freedoms.

I am here to discuss a recent issue that you might know. The San Bernardino shooting and iphone dispute. On December 2nd of 2015, a terrorist group attacked the inland regional center in San Bernardino California, killing 14 and injuring 22. An iphone was left behind by one of the terrorists, which the FBI found and asked Apple to find the iphone’s encryption code and unlock it. I think that this is unconstitutional and that privacy should be protected at all costs.

According to the Nation in the article Apple vs. the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation wants Apple to build a version of iOS with weak security. This will enable them to access the phone of Syed Rizwan Farook. Although the government is insisting that it will only utilize the tool once, this will affect the millions of Apple users. Apple is taking a stand because this not only compromises the privacy of their users, but it also presents vulnerabilities for hackers to exploit. Furthermore, sophisticated criminals have other advanced avenues of securing their communication and data.

needs to create a backdoor into the Apple 5c phone owned by the assassin, Farook, because the FBI is trying to figure out if there’s any info in this phone that could possibly help FBI stop these attacks against the U.S. Apple is fighting the government cause first this software is not meant to hacked ,they made these phones just so people can have privacy and they may not be able to make this backdoor anyways: