Iphone Attack Research Paper

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.

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

Mr. Cook confirmed, in the interview with David Muir, that there is indeed a precedent, “Millions of Americans had their credit card information stolen last year [...] the smartphone that you carry probably has more information about you than any other devices, so millions customers could get hurt.” On the other hand, the FBI is proposing the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority. Based on “Legal Information Institute” from Cornell University of Law School, the All Writs Act means “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” If the government can demand Apple to unlock a customer’s iPhone using the All Writs Act, it would have the power to authorize Apple to build surveillance software to intercept private conversations, and even access health records without an individual’s knowledge. Apple does not only care about privacy, but also about public safety. Apple has provided the FBI all the information on the phone that it could early in the investigation; they also suggested that the FBI connect the phone to a familiar network so the phone would be able to backup to iCloud. However, the FBI directed the county to reset the iCloud password, which inhibits the phone to backup any information to the iCloud. If one of the hackers knew what the new software could do, he or she could easily hack into anyone’s phone. Although Mr. Cook found out about the lawsuit through the media rather than personally, he mentioned that Apple is still doing everything to help the FBI in different ways to find more information on Farook’s

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

The signees begin their letter with an immediate call to action to the attorney general followed by a concession of their shared horror and outrage with the recent terror attacks in San Bernardino acknowledging the “need to ensure strong protections for national security” (PEN America). Contrasting the concession, the authors insert their first claim, “what the FBI is asking Apple to do would erode vital U.S. values… and could endanger writers and human rights advocates in [other] countries…” (PEN America). This suggests they have temerity in order to protect not only human rights but also future rights stay intact.

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.

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

Apple has satisfied the warrant issued by the government to the best of their ability. There is an implied social contract between citizens of the United States that living in a liberal democracy; one must give up some freedoms for the public safety of all. However, the FBI is asking for the exact opposite from Apple by asking them to give up the freedom of one iPhone that can potentially harm the freedom of millions of iPhones. The magistrate on behalf of the federal government issued a warrant on Apple to give up the data stored on an iPhone by hacking into the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter. Case law is on the government side with Smith v. Maryland, which there is no expectation of privacy for information given to third parties. The courts have issued warrants on third parties before, and the data contained by these third parties had to be turned over. But Apple does not have the data the government is looking for, and the government knows this. The government is trying to force Apple to create software to get into iPhone. The warrant to search the phone is valid, the government has the phone, there is no prohibition from searching the phone, and Apple is not holding data from the phone. The warrant has been satisfied. The shooter no longer has an expectation of privacy. However, all other Apple iPhones and product user besides the San Bernardino shooter does have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And that is why Apple never created a decryption key for their

The FBI feels that with the sheer magnitude of the attack, it is their moral obligation to do a thorough investigation, leaving no loose ends. They also hope that the iPhone may hold information that can help prevent future attacks. Both these views are expressed in their press release: “The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message. It is about the victims and justice. Fourteen people were slaughtered and many more had their lives and bodies ruined. We owe them a thorough and professional investigation under law… Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists.” (James Comey). In this passage from the FBI’s national press release, FBI director James Comey explains that their foremost concern is justice for the victims of the attack. The legal battle is not over privacy or precedent, but rather the investigation that the victims of the attack

On February 16, 2016, a United States judge working in the District Court of Los Angeles ordered the technology company Apple to help the FBI break into a work phone previously owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters. Apple was expected to assist in bypassing a feature of the iPhone that deletes its contents after a certain number of password tries. This would allow the FBI to enter an infinite number of passcodes, eventually cracking the iPhone. However, Apple denied this request, and appealed the initial hearing. Apple said that doing what the FBI asked would not only go against it’s First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights but, also, would endanger privacy of iPhone users everywhere. Apple is right in standing up to the FBI on this

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists. (Apple)

While Apple’s debate is important, the data on the San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone may contain pertinent information identifying other terrorists and malicious plots, thus making access to the information a matter of national security. The hunt for terrorist information began with the attack on the Twin Towers which marked the beginning of the American “War on Terror,” as described by President George W. Bush in 2001. In an effort to neutralize the numerous threats to the well-being of Americans, the government employed certain surveillance techniques that, according to the NSA head General Keith B. Alexander in 2013, have helped prevent “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11 including at least 10 homeland-based threats” (Savage). In order to save at least ten lives, the NSA had to collect information from the American people and the San

FBI somehow have hacked the San Bernardino attacker's IPhone without the help of Apple. The FBI used brute force attack which is a method in which they teat out all possible passcodes without erasing the content in the phone. It only took the FBI 26 minutes to crack this phone wich is good because they could possibly stop terror attacks. I personally, am not afraid that the FBI has power and servalence, I am afriad of how much power the FBI has and how it can abuse it. When the FBI has power, its very hard to take it away from

On December 2, 2015, two shooters opened fire at holiday party, killing 14 people and injuring 22. During a gun battle with law enforcement both shooters were killed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) had recovered a locked and encrypted iPhone that was in the possession of one of the shooters as part of the evidence. The F.B.I. was unable to access any data on the phone and so they turned to Apple for assistance.

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