Direct Quotes In Tim Cook's Letter

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

Now for the case that has kept the nation on the edge of their seats, we have Apple v. FBI. This has really split the nation as people are torn apart by wanting to side with the makers of their beloved iPhone or the government that has given many their freedom. This all started with a tragedy, unfortunately, the tragedy the San Bernardino shooting. After the terrorists were killed, the FBI obtained the iPhone from one of the shooters and believed that they could find more information in it. They turned to Apple in order to open up the phone, as iPhones are set to ‘self-destruct’ all data after 10 failed password attempts. Apple flat out refused. In a letter to the public sent out by Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, said, “Once the... way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.” This essentially is saying that someone could come along after the phone had been

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).

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 shouldn’t have the ability to access user’s phones because of the invasion of privacy, the limitations & precautions that would be created for the user, and the sense of embarrassment to have complete strangers being able to view all your personal information. Apples terms and agreements are unfair to users because you don’t have no ultimatum especially when it comes too updating your phone they have access to your apps , pictures and other private things that you really can’t deny. Other invaders can’t access but apple People’s distress over the privacy of their communications has never been smaller. Whether the

In regards to Apple, if the government was to only offer incentives to Apple, there would be a negative externality for other companies that offer similar products.

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.

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

In recent years Apple has come under fire over their company’s views on the security and values that they hold. Apple is very focused on their customer base, they pride themselves on having a great security software program that is harder to hack, and software that protects their customers from invasion of privacy. December 2,2015 in San Bernardino, California a terrorist attack was made against innocent civilians. 14 innocent lives were taken in this attack; the terrorist were found to be using Apple’s IPhone. In New York, a high level drug dealer was busted, he was using an IPhone and claim he forgot his password. Apple has since then come under scrutiny from the Federal government to assist them, while many of their customers are backing

FBI case have been examined, the issues and problems that come with allowing unsafe access can now be discussed. Adam Levin wrote an article for The Huffington Post and he says that the FBI is indecisive and unreliable due to the fact that in 2014 the FBI had decided against using legislatively force decryption on technology, and the fact that they’ve completely changed ideas on the topic is unsettling, especially when they know so little about it (Levin). The people who believe that Apple needs to give the FBI access into the phone do not understand technology; the codes that would be made to break into the phone would be a strong one and it can and will fall into the wrong hands, causing chaos. Eric Litchblau, a writer for The New York Times, mentions the fact that since the FBI doesn’t completely understand the repercussions that will happen if Apple allows them the access they need just goes to show that law enforcement in general want to do what’s best for them and their cases, and not necessarily what’s best for the entire public

Apple publically declined because it could permanently weaken the privacy of law abiding citizens worldwide and open the flood gates to access a technology that is used by billions of people. A week later, it was admitted that the FBI had hacked the phone themselves. In fact, they lied about the need for a back door (Apple 2016). The government wants an easy way to access data on devices with secure encryption. Creating a master key or “back door” to access millions of phones is not the same as searching a single home of an alleged terrorist or criminal. In essence it is a breach in privacy with far reaching implications.

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

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.

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

Apple is committed to maintaining the highest standards, for both environmental responsibility and ethical conducts. They follow strict