Pros And Cons Of FBI-Protect Private Information

At stake are two forces representing a critical dilemma of the post-2001 world: security vs. privacy. Fighting for security, the FBI is seeking “backdoor” access to the iPhone in question that was used by one of the two suspects in the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015. Defending privacy is Apple, Inc., designer and marketer of the Apple iPhone. The two suspects under investigation are linked with known terrorist groups, possibly ISIS, with definitive proof of these links locked away in the encrypted iPhone used by one of the shooters. Apple has built extensive encryption into its products, including the iPhone, in an effort to protect customers and users from unwanted privacy intrusion by hackers, either freelance or

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

Apple should be forced to unlock an iPhone or not. It becomes a controversial topic during these years. Most of them are concerned with their privacy and security. Darrell Issa is a congressman and has served the government since 2001. Recently, he published “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent” in Wired Magazine, to persuade those governors worked in the Congress. It is easier to catch administrators’ attention because some of them want to force Apple to unlock the iPhone. Darrel Issa focuses on governors because he thinks they can support the law to make sure that everyone has privacy. He addresses the truth that even some of the governors force Apple to hack iPhones when they need people’s information. He considers maintaining people’s privacy as the primary purpose. He also insists that Apple should not be forced to use their information which could lead people’s safety. In “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent,” Darrell Issa uses statistics and historical evidence to effectively persuade his audience of governors that they need to consider Apple should force to hack or not because it could bring people to a dangerous situation and forget the purpose of keeping people’s privacy.

The dispute between Apple and the FBI has been one of the controversial topics since the shooting in San Bernardino. The FBI wanted Apple to help “unlock” the iPhone; however, Tim Cook, an Apple CEO, refused to provide the assistance. Mr. Cook was right about doing so because of two reasons: customers’ important information must be protected, and the FBI’s order is a dangerous precedent.

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

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

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

The main problem Darrel addresses throughout the article is whether or not apple should engineer software for the FBI to allow them to unlock the iPhone used by the terrorists responsible for the San Bernardino attack. He then brings up the fact that “the FBI cannot mandate that apple create a backdoor to override the iPhone’s encryption features without creating a dangerous precedent that could cast a long shadow over the future of how we use our phones and internet for the years to come.” The problem with the FBI asking apple for this is a much larger one than people may think. Darrel uses logos, pathos, and ethos, throughout the article to help persuade and inform his audience that what is happening is a big ordeal. He then goes into detail supporting his thesis by explaining the many problems that could possibly arise.

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.

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 his article, “What If Apple is Wrong,” technology journalist for MIT Brian Bergstein questions the decisions tech giant Apple made after refusing to give the FBI a backdoor into iPhones’ data. In April of this year, Apple refused the FBI’s request to open up the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, who shot and killed 14 people in San Bernadino, California. Bergstein opens by relating the story of Devon Godfrey, who was shot in 2010. After using security camera footage to wrongly arrest the suspect on charge of murder, Godfrey’s iPhone revealed that the murderer was someone entirely different. Using this as a springboard for his line of questioning, Bergstein ponders whether the case would have been solved without access to victim’s iPhone.

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

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

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.