Government Encryption

The paper will examine the creation of back-doors for cellular devices and if that act would violate civil liberties, relating specifically to Apple and the FBI.

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 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

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.

As you are aware, on December 2, 2015 a terrorist attack took place at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California in which 14 civilians were killed and 22 others were seriously injured. On February 9, 2016 the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) announced that it was unable to unlock one of the mobile phones they recovered, an Apple I-phone issued by the county of San Bernardino to the shooter Syed Rizwan Farook due to its advanced security features. (Volz, Dustin; Hosenball, Mark (February 9, 2016). "FBI director says investigators unable to unlock San Bernardino shooter 's phone content". Reuters). The FBI requested from Apple Inc., a multinational technology giant, that they create a new version of the phone’s operating system that could be installed and run in the phone’s random access memory to disable certain security features. This would effectively create a back door into the I-phone. Apple turned down the FBI’s request due to a security concern. Thus began a fight between the United States Government and Apple Inc. over breaking encryption and government intrusion. The clash reflects wider debates in the United States and elsewhere over security measures used by companies to protect users of devices such as smartphones — and how much leverage authorities should have to gain

Encryption is a wonderful and powerful tool when trustworthy people use it in an appropriate manner. If the tool falls into the wrong hands, it becomes less wonderful and more powerful. So what are the wrong hands and what should be done about it? Many corporations from the technology industry and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say nothing should be done about it. Americans have the right to privacy and encryption can provide that. On the other sided of the controversy, the Clinton Administration wants to secure access to all encryption keys so any encrypted communication can be intercepted, which will ensure social welfare. Governmental involvement in the use of encryption is a controversial issue. Throughout history, Governmental Agencies have interfered with the development and implementation of surveillance technology; this behavior may foreshadow future involvement with encryption. The debate of the Government's involvement is ongoing with valid points on both sides. In order to fairly evaluate both arguments, one must first understand cryptography and it's history of development.

My topic for the research paper will focus on the Apple vs FBI case with the San Bernardino terrorist shootings and the FBI requesting to gain access to the killers locked phone. I will review whether the FBI has the right to gain access to the phone and if Apple has the right to not help out the FBI with gaining access to the phone. I will also bring up alternatives that the FBI could use to get into the phone. My personally opinion is I don’t have an issue with the FBI trying to gain access to the terrorist shooters phone if it will help to prevent further attacks against the United States and allies. The reason FBI officials want access to the phone is there is encrypted data in the terrorist phone and its GPS system which may hold vital

In the dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell, the people of Earth live without any privacy whatsoever. In this world, every person if spied on by the government by all means imaginable. There are listening devices everywhere, undercover agents, and even recording cameras placed in what most people find to be a sacred and private place: the home. Privacy can be found nowhere in this world depicted by George Orwell. And, terrifyingly, this world could be a probable future if, in light of the recent terror attacks in San Bernardino, Apple is forced to hack the iPhone at the orders of the FBI. However, in order to protect privacy and keep people safe, Apple should resists the FBI’s order.

December 2, 2015, San Bernardino, 1 year ago Friday a mass shooting and attempted bombing to place in our own state of California. Such attacks as this has become increasingly more frequent occurrence in the United States, with it there comes a dilemma that detectives judges, and federal agents have to go through after such attacks. “Should tech companies release encrypted devices information under a warrant?” Right after the attack on San Bernardino there was criticisms that the major tech company Apple should in fact give the police the data on the phone,after major back and forth it was clear Apple was not interested in doing so. They ended up settling on stopping the phone from deleting data after many incorrect attempts. James B Comey of the FBI in a statement to the Washington Post stated “It has been two months now, and we are still working on it,” (Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post). After the FBI requested Apple to break into the phone there was a number of controversies going along with it, I personally believe that if it is in a dire situation such as the San Bernardino attack then yes, tech companies should help the FBI before another major occurrence happens. However I don 't mean that after every crime or situation try to access someone phones, this would be a clear invasion of someone 's property. We also shouldn 't respond to a fearful situation so hastily, but if need be and there is evidence that in

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.

Throughout the debate I have sided with apple simply because if the FBI intrudes on their privacy, they also intrude on their amendments as well. If the FBI does that, it then become un fair and

Also in the same way, a very recent publically exploited investigation helped general population understand the threat of this action really happening. On March 28th, 2016 the Apple vs FBI case raised. This case was and still Is a quite controversial topic. See on November 2nd, 2015 the San Bernardino Shooting happened, and with this being said the shooter had an iPhone something very valuable to the FBIs investigation. The tricky thing is the FBI had trouble unlocking the encryption key( aka the password lock ;) ) of the phone, so they asked apple for their cooperation. The twist is in addition to unlocking the encryption key, the FBI asked Apple to install a backdoor on all iPhones in a new software update. If Apple did this a huge gap

As we all know, there are two sides to every story. However, how do we know which side is true? Well, Apple and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are currently dealing with that very situation. In December of 2015 there was a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. According to my research, a federal judge asked Apple to assist the FBI in unlocking an iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists. As for Apple’s side of the story, Apple chief executive, Tim Cook, explained to the FBI that he felt if he showed the FBI how to unlock this phone, they would start doing it to everyone. Apple also argued that this violates due process.

People who are advocates of the government having a backdoor to unlock iPhones believe that this act will help reduce crime in society. Apple is one of the most widespread and frequently used brands in today’s society. It is no astonishment that the government seeks to use this company as a resource for information on crime activity. This demand has recently resulted from the government being unable to access the information in the iPhone 5c of one of the attackers of San Bernardino. The assailant was one of the individuals accountable for the deaths of fourteen victims. “Prosecutors said the contents of the phone could provide crucial evidence about the attackers’ communications and contacts before the shooting.” The attacker is now dead and all that is left of his deeds and intentions is his iPhone 5c. This criminal was using the iPhone that millions of other people use every day to contact other criminals and most likely discussed the details of his tactics. If the government has access to iPhones they are then capable of learning more about the criminals that use the phones and they can learn about their intentions in order to prevent further crime. Millions of people use iPhones including criminals and this form of communication is something the government needs access to in order to help prevent crime.

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