Right To Privacy Issues: Open The Phone !

Police being able to search your phone without is warrant is a violation of privacy and the fourth amendment. This is an ongoing issue that is currently in the Supreme Court and state courts, which have split opinions on the issue. The courts are having a lot of trouble grasping what to compare a cell phone to as far as searching it. A big case that they are comparing searching cell phones to is over 40 years old and it involves a police officer searching through a cigarette box and finding drugs. A judge in the 9th circuit against warrantless search debunked the cigarette box comparison by saying phones are more like a suitcase, except the suitcase contains everything that you have ever traveled with in your entire life,

Subsequently, I think Apple should try and use the patch method to unlock the iPhone for several reasons, instead of not unlocking it at all. The iPhone's owner is a gunman, a shooter, and it would seem quite wrong to not unlock it to figure out anything, like who was this person, what are his plans, what made him like this. Technically, Apple has the right to refuse to unlock the iPhone, but we need to solve this issue, and protect ourselves from future terrorists to use iPhones. There is another problem, and it is that if Apple decides to work with the FBI to break the laws just to break into their own iPhones, other foreign governments can use Apple to break into iPhones from owners that don’t live in the US. This means that Apple will have to work more with others and give up time to use the iPhone. I think Apple should have some time to unlock the iPhone just for the FBI so they can have access to the terrorist’s plans. Terrorism in the US is a very critical problem and is very serious and Apple will need to solve the way to unlock the iPhone without giving up privacy and security to the FBI. Apple will need to find a way to make the iPhone unlock without the FBI knowing how to and other foreign governments also. If Apple does not succeed to unlock the iPhone, or gives up both privacy and security, then having an iPhone really looks like there is no specialty or difference between Android phones. If Apple decides to unlock the iPhone just for the FBI, this

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

Telephone is a telecommunications device used to communicate between two or more people in any distance. Primarily telephones were used only for communication purposes but today telephones are as powerful and useful as computers are. With the evolution of phones, many things have changed which includes phone records. In past, phone records involved only phone numbers but today there is so many data and information on phones. These records include phone numbers, bank information, personal pictures and videos, location and text messages. These records are often used by law enforcers to investigate crimes by gathering information from phone records. Since 1970 many things has changed. This paper examines the technological differences between phone records in the 1970 and smartphones, privacy and how courts affect the technology.

Apple shouldn’t have the ability to access user’s phones because of the invasion of privacy, the limitations & precautions that would be created for the user, and the sense of embarrassment to have complete strangers being able to view all your personal information. Apples terms and agreements are unfair to users because you don’t have no ultimatum especially when it comes too updating your phone they have access to your apps , pictures and other private things that you really can’t deny. Other invaders can’t access but apple People’s distress over the privacy of their communications has never been smaller. Whether the

There are many good reasons that the Fourth Amendment is in order but there is also the fact that peoples’ privacy can be invaded using this amendment. Communications can be collected and retained, the communications receive no special protection, and nothing would prohibit the NSA from sharing information with military prosecutors. Communications received and given away can also include foreign intelligence information. This Amendment allows the NSA to maintain “knowledge databases” which the databases house internet data, including metadata that reveals online activities, as well as telephone numbers and email addresses that the agency had reason to believe are being used by U.S. people. Whenever a phone “moves into a new service area” updates

The fact is that there was no way of stopping it, no way of knowing that it was coming, but now there may be. Accessing the terrorists phones could give information on who was involved. The terrorists who killed innocent people could be put in jail or be given the death penalty. The ones that died may have some justification, and the families might have a shimmer of consolation for the death of a loved one. With this software there is a possibility that future attacks could be prevented, and terrorists could be put in jail. If another group of people were planning on attacking and their information was on the phones, the FBI and Apple would be able to access it. This could lead to finding where these terrorist are, and stopping any shooting, bombing, or any type of terrorist attack from

Meanwhile law officials are saying that the quality of their equipment to get into gadgets are low.But then Apple says that opening the phone leads to other problems like violation of the customer’s rights and privacy. Apple has protested that it is not right for the F.B.I. to go behind their back and have a third party join and decrypt the password.Apple also said that the government had forced them to try to open it for them and or to create a new way to unlock Mr.Farook’s phone and considered it to be forced speech and viewpoint of discrimination which violates the first amendment.The Apple had also said that the government had violated Apples Fifth Amendment right which says they allowed to dothings without the governments comments.They

As a nation, we have had many first-hand experiences with terrorism and violence. The pain and suffering we are put through as a nation, people tend not to consider being subjected to government surveillance. Our security from future terrorist attacks is vital, then again, not as vital as our privacy. People shouldn’t be so quick to sacrifice their privacy rights, to allow the government to monitor national security. Giving the government the power of invading our privacy, creates an effortless way for them to violate their power and strip citizens of their constitutional rights. People will argue that the price one has to pay for safety, is giving up their rights to privacy. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (Independence Hall Association). In other words, those willing to give up their privacy for security, deserve neither. We the people, those who assemble this nation, should not allow the government to invade our privacy or void our 4th amendment right.

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.

I, Savannah Parmelee believe an individual's right to privacy should be protected if they do not violate the law to a certain degree therefore, I plan to seek out evidence during my research that supports this controlling idea. I am greatly concerned about this topic due to the people’s privacy not being fully protected for both terrorist and by the government.In the video “Impact of drones on privacy rights” on “CBS This Morning” claims that “Lakota, N.D., is the first known site where a drone was used domestically to help arrest a U.S. citizen.” What the quote is saying is that drones helped arrest a U.S. citizen. The incident in the video proves that drones can help see illegal activities happening and can try to stop

FBI case have been examined, the issues and problems that come with allowing unsafe access can now be discussed. Adam Levin wrote an article for The Huffington Post and he says that the FBI is indecisive and unreliable due to the fact that in 2014 the FBI had decided against using legislatively force decryption on technology, and the fact that they’ve completely changed ideas on the topic is unsettling, especially when they know so little about it (Levin). The people who believe that Apple needs to give the FBI access into the phone do not understand technology; the codes that would be made to break into the phone would be a strong one and it can and will fall into the wrong hands, causing chaos. Eric Litchblau, a writer for The New York Times, mentions the fact that since the FBI doesn’t completely understand the repercussions that will happen if Apple allows them the access they need just goes to show that law enforcement in general want to do what’s best for them and their cases, and not necessarily what’s best for the entire public

How different countries and organizations are approaching privacy issues along with my predictions how it will unfold the future

Privacy laws are established because people have a right to privacy, to an extent. For many years people have argued over their privacy rights, from online videos, to people spying on them, even people stealing internet. People think that they should be completely secluded from others seeing what they’re doing, but in all reality, there’s no stopping people from seeing what you are doing. With more people using the flaws within our media and lives, we as a society must come to accept the fact that people are watching us.

The company on the forefront of this issue is Apple. After the tragic events in San Bernardino, CA on December 2, 2015, the United States FBI located an iPhone 5C belonging to one of the terrorists. The FBI, however, was unable to access the phone and formally requested Apple to unlock the device to facilitate the search for information about the killers. Apple swiftly refused and after several weeks of back and forth, the FBI filed a case against Apple (Nakashima April 2016). This case