Iphones: Should It Be Able To Control Personal Phones?

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.

For many, the idea that government could could have access to all of an individual's personal information by manipulation of ciphertext is a violation of free speech. The applicable part of the First Amendment here prohibits the making of any law, "abridging the freedom of speech” (The First Amendment). There are an abundance of ways to communicate, we can write words, we can talk, we can take photographs, we can draw pictures. The Northwest Public Radio (NPR) published the article, “ Apple's First Amendment Argument” it states that, “during the 1990’s. There was a confrontation in court on whether code, or encryption, is a form of speech”. A student at University of California by the name of Daniel Bernstein, created an encryption software called Snuffle. He attempted to put it on the Internet, the government made an effort to stop him, using laws that were meant for the restrictions of firearms and ammunitions. Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law argued in the NPR article, “In Fighting FBI, Apple Says Free Speech Rights Mean No Forced Coding” that Daniel Bernstein's code was a “form of speech and therefore protected by the Constitution”. Goldman was saying “I believe that privacy is important and I'm going to use this software as a platform to protect this right”. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that software is a form of speech and has been treated as such ever since. Therefore if software code is speech, Apple claims the First Amendment also means the government cannot force Apple to comply with its cause. The FBI wants Apple to write software code to help it break into the iPhone. The opposing side of this argument is lead by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The government is concerned that technology’s security will prevent them from maximizing the safety of the U.S. citizens.

Driven by increased concerns about government surveillance and consumer privacy, the technology industry has accelerated the deployment of advanced encryption technology for consumers and businesses. Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook has said that his company won’t even be able to comply with court subpoenas involving its iMessage

The FBI, a institution that violates the privacy the public in thousands of ways is trying to have another way to do it, only this time, it is reasonable. They want Apple to create a software to disable the wipe-out function when the security code is entered incorrectly 10 times. This will help the FBI access information that could be very important about serious events such as terrorist attacks, murders, etcetera . It has been brought up recently because the San Bernardino shooters phone is in the possession of the FBI and it could have information about who else was involved, or have information on future attacks. Apple does not want to do this, they believe it is an invasion of privacy, but the creation of the software is essential in the case, and will help with many other cases in the future.

Apple has the right to resist the FBI’s pressure to hack Syed Farook’s phone. Some say that Apple had no right to resist because the FBI are working on a case, but to hack into someone’s phone breaking their privacy, which is violating the Fourth Amendment. On Google, the fourth amendment clearly states, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The amendment does not say that third parties can force people to help aid the Federal Government. The FBI has no right to invade on Farook’s life. Some again say, yes they do, they are trying to protect Americans from future bombings, shootings, and any other types of terrorism. However, this may be true, it

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 concede with the government, FBI, and U.S. citizens regarding terrorism. They agree all of them “want to take aggressive steps to reduce the threat of terrorism” suggesting that the authors can see both sides of the argument so Lynch will listen to their request for an end to the FBI’s efforts to force Apple to create the software.

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.

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

Eventually the court ordered for it to happened, but the Apple kept its same stance. The feud between corporations and a government is a human issue that pertains to anyone who values privacy and inalienable rights. Many argue that giving up privacy for secret is not worth it. After Brussel Attacks, citizens are angry that they are given up privacy, but their governments have not been successful in combating terrorism.These initiative are a direct violation to the Fourth Amendment which states “Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, hall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” In order to search a person there has to a probable cause to do so. The Federal government is violating this statement by invading privacy. I began to do research on the topic, and found an interesting video where an adjacent professor at Seton Hall Law, Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Fourth Amendment was created to “protect the quintessential American right of the right to be left alone”. By the FBI intervening with the software, it goes against constitutional, privacy and human rights. All the spying has been unsuccessful, because the United States continue to have attacks on the homeland. A Recent example would be the Boston Marathon bombing where hundreds were injured after the fatality. Additionally, according to a recent report from a digital analytics firm comScore reveals that of the 184 million Americans owning a smartphone, more than 4 in 10 use and iPhone. For this reason, this issue pertains to all of us. This is an issue who should concern anyone with a cell phone, laptop and etc. To a certain extent I agree with Edward Snowden that the American people should be allowed to decide whether or not they approve of these government actions. Apple should preserve our

The recent case Apple vs. FBI has raised controversy over the priorities placed on national security and personal privacy. The controversy stems from Apple’s denial of access to an iPhone involved in the orchestrating an act of terrorism. On December second, 2015, a couple in San Bernardino, California, massacred fourteen people and seriously injured twenty-two others in a terrorist attack. One perpetrator, Syed Farook, worked for the county health department and possessed a county-owned Apple iPhone 5C, which may have stored some of his recent online activity. This data could provide information surrounding the terrorist’s affiliations, motives, or background. The phone was encrypted through Apple’s operating system and the FBI has been unable to unlock the device. A court order, requested by U.S. judge Sheri Pym ruled that Apple must provide a decryption program that would grant the FBI access to the phone. Apple

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

The Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, and seizures… “. This has been violated by the NSA. They have searched citizens’ personal emails and phone records without warrants under the protection of the Protect America Act and it has gone too far! Invasion of privacy is a big problem; and it is allowed! For example, in 2003, Charles S. Cole Jr., a bar owner, was paranoid that his bathrooms and restaurant were being destroyed by customers.

The issue of whether cell phone searches are covered by the fourth amendment and subjected to warrant has long been a debate in the judiciary system. Looking deeply into cases regarding this issue, several court have upheld the searches to be legitimate and therefore found it liable under the amendment. This justification can be traced to a clause, which is a section of the clause of the Fourth Amendment. That is “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. Furthermore, there has been past cases that has successfully been decided by the court judges to be a warrantless search. This type of case can be seen with the “Bond versus United states” in 2010.

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