Invasion Of Privacy

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.

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

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

Privacy; the state of being free from being observed or being disturbed. Things such as credit card companies, ads on television, warnings on the evening news, and even locker searches at school all directly contradict the definition of “privacy”.

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

tried to build a new version of iOS, it would not have Apple’s encryption key to verify it. Apple has stated that the F.B.I. could ask Verizon the network Mr. Farook’s phone was under that could be used to give the F.B.I. more information that was on the phone.The government also could ask for information from the app makers who created some of the apps that were on Mr. Farook’s phone.But Apple had said that the F.B.I. probably had already done that.Apple is most worried about is all the request that the F.B.I. could potentially ask for in the future.So the real question here is how far can the law officials go in forcing a third party to help in surveillance?Apple had said that they will continue to help law officials with their cases as they have always done and we will continue to whenever the information from their products can help and as the threats and attacks on our nation become more common and more complex. This case has raised issues which deserve a national talk about our civil liberties, and our collective security and privacy.Given how common smartphones and tablets are just means that problems with technology won’t ever smaller or

While I trust the government and support their policies, you, the federal government, have failed us Americans. When attempting to gain information for an investigation, nearly 22.1 million innocent Americans have been exposed to the public with their personal information hanging by a thread, according to the Washington Post. You politicians may assume that justice is served by providing victims with incentives of extra security technology, but the federal government should not be allowed to gain information from personal devices for their investigation. Furthermore, the use of malware to hack these innocent Americans is an invasion of privacy, ruins devices and their data, ensues lawsuits and their costs with unnecessary breaches, and may even put people’s lives at risk.

On December 2, 2015, Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik walked into a federal building and killed 14 people and injured 22. The couple fled in an SUV and later got into a shootout with police officers and was killed in their vehicle. I don’t want to take away anything from the victims of this horrible tragedy, but this set the stage for the huge battle between a tech giant in Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). During the FBI investigation, it was discovered that the male suspect Rizwan Farook had in his possession a locked IPhone-5C running the iOS 7 operating system. The FBI quickly discovered that this phone would be very difficult to unlock, so they decided to turn to Apple for help in solving this issue.

In the United States, as well as other developed countries, privacy is becoming a restriction not a freedom. The technology we use today has led to many investigations about what others know about us. For example, Snowden publicly disclosed that the NSA was secretly recording millions of phone calls being made throughout the US. There are also many other issues citizens have with technology and the privacy issues following it. Recently, many computers have been able to publicly record people through the built in camera. Furthermore, the scariest thing about privacy is that many hackers are able to duplicate someone else’s identity for their personal benefit.

The case of Apple Vs FBI is basically the FBI trying to have Apple change their operating system (OS) in their phones so they can be encrypted if they need to be. Currently, Apple phones are set up to protect against hacking. The FBI wants to gain this access so they can stop a terrorist from being able to use mobile technology as means of harm and to gain knowledge of what the attack could be.

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.

Government surveillance has not contributed to a decrease of percentage in crimes, but has created a controversial topic instead. Online surveillance has been an invasion of privacy, because everything the users access is seen without their consent. Due to the fact the stored data is not used, government surveillance in the united states has not been very impactful. Crimes and terrorist attacks were not stopped, and the mass storage of personal data within the last year has violated privacy laws 2,776 times (Government Surveillance 722). Surveillance online is not only unsuccessful in America, but in UK, and Canada as well. Out of every 1000 security cameras, only one camera is actually used to catch a criminal (Government Surveillance 722). However, there are several solutions that can be made to allow the usage of government surveillance without the violating the rights of Americans. Some of the solutions have already taken action, and will give users more freedom online.

Possibly the technological feature creating the most controversy is surveillance cameras. What is seemingly there for public safety could also inhibit safety by exposing the public’s private life. Every move made under the hawk-like vision of the camera is observed and judged by someone sitting behind the scenes. Women risk being stalked by sexual predators, and assailants have been known to memorize the schedule of a subject in order to time the perfect attack (Stead). “Bad cops” may gain insight to a personal life that allows for the watcher to blackmail the victim. In recent studies it has been proven that an increase in surveillance cameras does not decrease the crime rate; it

In the modern world there have been a lot of technological advances within societies. Technology concerns about security and surveillance has changed the thoughts of people. This surveillance technology consist of spying video cameras, CCTV security and surveillance cameras, surveillance electronic communications, face recognition and many others. Some people think this technology is okay while others carry a different view.  These people feel that it is an invasion of privacy, especially when it is in a public place. Use of surveillance technology are impinging on our privacy as they are affecting student moral, privacy at workplace, behavior of people, life