Personal Narrative: The Right To Privacy

5 Ways You Give The Government Control” written by Kenneth Coats shows how the devices we use daily slowly take over individuals lives. Coats states, “Today, most people in the United States carry a mobile phone that accompanies them wherever they go. We use them for everything...This essentially makes them the perfect tracking and bugging devices”. Although electronic devices are known to be safe, they allow outside people to figure out individuals personal life. Due to the need for devices such as cell phones, each individual has a high chance of being socially stalked once in their lifetime. Coats then states, “Not only do intelligence agencies gather information via mobile companies, but… your phone can be hacked using spyware. Even if your phone is turned off, it can be remotely accessed to recorded conversations and take photographs”. This issue causes a panic due to the wide spread of inappropriate pictures and private conversations in one's life. Even though technology is viewed as a privileged, it is also taking away people's lives without their

Apple’s iPhones are incredibly hard to hack, that the FBI can't even get in it themselves! Annoyingly, iPhone users are in trouble because the FBI is trying to get Apple to unlock an iPhone. Frighteningly, there are extremists that use iPhones to store their information in them, and if the FBI gets their hands on them, all iPhone users will be in trouble. The problem is that they don't have the right to break into somebody’s iPhone, and Apple doesn't have the information about the gunman in their database. Unfortunately, It seems the only way the FBI will get the information of lawbreakers is if they hack into their iPhones. Apple has to allow the FBI to unlock iPhones, because, they can use the information from

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.

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

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

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

Technology has become more accessible to the point it has become easier for government to watch everyone's move. In this generation technology takes over everyone's daily life, where people wakes up and the first thing is look at is the phone. A phone there are many things on it, like text, pictures and videos. Phones can do many things, but there is a possibility where the government can tap into a phone and look through it. The government can watch everyone’s: text, history, private info, and pictures. Government has no right to looking through people’s personal info because it violates Fourth amendment, Blackmail, and Creates fear.

In 1787, the constitution was born. The constitution has been America’s guideline to the American way of life. Our US constitution has many points in it to protect America and it’s people from an overpowered government, our economy, and ourselves. The only thing the constitution doesn’t directly give us, is our right to privacy, and our right to privacy has been a big concern lately courtesy of the National Security Agency (NSA).(#7) Although our constitution doesn’t necessarily cover the privacy topic, it does suggest that privacy is a given right. Some people say that the right to privacy was so obvious, that our founding fathers didn’t even feel the need to make a point about it.(#9) It also didn’t help

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.

Born in the year 2000, I am almost 27 years and in this short time I have been deprived of many things; my life is not what it used to be. NO, much has changed, I know that I should be like my friends who have fun and party every day. Yet, that is not the case. I am different, I am able to understand things others cannot.

Corporations are also largely pushing back against this government debate for a backdoor. According to Peterson’s article in the Washington Post, many companies have experienced an increase in security breaches and attacks from criminals in recent years. As a consequence, many of them are working on incorporating harder encryption systems, some of which are designed in such a way that the company does not have access to the “digital keys” that are used to unlock this data. Due to these measures, Sanger and Perlroth found that “when companies like Apple and Facebook are issued court orders to help governments monitor their customers’ messages, all they can do is turn over a stream of unintelligible code.” Supporters of encryption, such as Apple’s chief executive Tim Cook, state that limiting this encryption would damage “customers’ confidence that the most precious data they keep in their phones is safe from garden variety cybercriminals as well as sophisticated nation states that could gain access to keys via hacking” (Sanger and Perlroth). Furthermore, Sanger and Perlroth spoke to a computer security expert named Matt Blaze at the University of Pennsylvania who mentioned that encryption itself is only particularly useful for hiding data and the contents of conversations. Blaze states that encryption does not hide the fact that two parties were in communication, nor does it protect that data when the devices used by the individuals are compromised, implying that encryption

The Crypto Wars is the name for the U.S. government’s attempts to limit the public’s and foreign nations’ access to cryptography strong enough to resist decryption by national intelligence agencies.1 U. S. Government law enforcement officials want tech companies to give them a "backdoor" into encrypted cellphones and other devices. Tech companies object to it. There have been bills drafted in Congress on this issue. Apparently, I will object to a bill to require tech companies to provide a backdoor because it infringes the privacy rights of smartphone users. This is the ethical challenge about privacy behind the Crypto Wars. However, this is a Right vs. Right issue since under specific circumstances, such as kidnapping and terrorism, it is necessary to have the access of a “backdoor” into encrypted mobile devices. This issue

Now days, it is a common thing for people to host massive amounts of data on their cell phones and portable devices. Whether one is aware of it or not, significant details such as locations, passwords, and personal messages can all be retrieved via backdoor access. Backdoor access, is essentially being able to access information through an alternate method that does not involve the primary user. Today’s phones are not built with that type of access available, however modifications can be made in the future to allow it. People have sacrificed much of their privacy for the convenience of these electronic devices. The Government should not have backdoor access to people’s phones because it evades too much privacy and leaves too much of a risk

Phone encryption is designed to defend the public’s personal information such as credit card numbers and social security numbers from identity thieves and hackers. If these criminals get their hands on this data, they can ruin a person’s life by running up their bills, posing as them, or hurting their credit score. In 2015, there were 4,000 cybercrimes per day in the United States. This is not an issue going away anytime soon. With that said, the recent San Bernardino attacks have brought the encryption issue under intense controversy. The FBI is pro-safety, wanting to provide the victims with justice and potentially stop future terrorist attacks. On the other hand, Apple believes personal privacy is of greater significance. Therefore, encryption

The recent case between the FBI and Apple brought a worldwide ethical dilemma into the public eye, and it could have detrimental effects to the entire tech industry. The FBI wanted Apple to create backdoor access to encrypted data on one of San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, and Apple refused just as many other large tech companies such as Amazon and Microsoft are doing nowadays. This situation creates the ethical dilemma of whether the government should have complete access to all encrypted data, and how consumers will react knowing their private data is not actually private.