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.
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
On the evening of February 17, 2016, the phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters was found. The phone was still in working condition but could not be accessed because of security measures that could potentially wipe all the data on it. A reporter from the New York Times, Mike Isaac, informs on the situation in depth, writing how, being a potentially huge piece of evidence, the court demanded that the company that made the phone, Apple, create a means to either bypass or remove the encryption on it so the FBI could access the phone’s contents. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, has refused to do this, stating that “No reasonable person would find [it] acceptable” to create a technique that threatens the security of others.
I strongly believe that Apple is doing the ethical thing of not allowing the FBI to change their OS from what it is because it goes against people’s right to privacy. Yes, the intent is to protect against terrorism, but in reality, humans go too far when they have the ability to gain knowledge on something they are interested in. To elaborate, without
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
This significance of this decision is explained by the fact that the true problem lies ahead and will thus be affected by it. An independent security researcher Graham Cluley points out that “it will be a different technology company having demands made of it - perhaps a company which doesn't have as much of a backbone (or the legal funds) that Apple did." He expresses his concerns that in the future the FBI will encounter a situation in which they are not able to get what they want and will consequently drive software engineers to go against their ethical standards and perform tasks that would jeopardize the privacy and security of millions . Apple’s insistence on privacy has protected smaller companies that might not have the finances
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.
If Apple were to attempt to crack their own software, they would probably be able to do it in less time than a government agency. With Apple collaborating with all the parties it makes them look like the “good guys”, and may also give good publicity to Apple. It is a double edged sword, on one hand you may be protecting the lives of many innocent civilians, on the other hand you are risking losing your valued customers because of huge business decision. I understand Apple wants to stand their ground, they want to prove to their customer they have the best security, but at what cost are they willing to go. The case in which Jen Feng is being looked at is very different than the San Bernardino shooting case. Drug dealers who are dealing a highly addictive, deadly drug like Jun Feng should be punished. But, when it comes to the safety of not just a country but the world as a whole there lies an issue. With the scenario with Feng, if it was a corner dealer there is no point cracking into his phone. If you give that dealer a plea deal he may take, giving law enforcement a name they are looking for. However, if the FBI or local law enforcement were to arrest a high level drug dealer, searching their phone may become very beneficial and helpful. Ending the war on drugs is something society as always worked in, if it means Apple works with law enforcement I think that is reasonable. What if on Farook’s phone were more plans of terrorist attacks that were meant to be carried out? If, Apple helped crack their security we would not have to see innocent lives being taken away. The Brussels terrorist attack happened in March of 2016, if they knew about the attack through their phones, maybe they could have been prevented. Innocent lives would not have been taken, hundreds of people would have not been injured living the rest of their lives with
After Farook and Malik were killed following their crimes, an intense legal battle broke out between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Apple. The FBI wanted the technology giant to unlock Farook’s iPhone, believing that it might contain vital information related to why he and his wife committed the act of major terrorism. Apple refused, realizing that doing so would violate the safety and privacy of their millions of customers. The situation only got more serious when a federal magistrate ordered Apple to unlock the iPhone. Interestingly, there were many cases to similar to this in the past, but none achieved near as much notoriety as this had at its climax. Part of that is because it also involves terrorism; many hope that it also
“Apple conducts business ethically, honestly and in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations. This applies to every business decision in every area of the company worldwide” (Apple Inc., 2015). This is the opening statement from Apple’s Business Conduct. Most publicly operating companies construct a business conduct or a code of ethics that is specific for that particular company. Apple’s code of ethics was written to express their most important principles and values.
Rebuttal: the FBI can hack the phone on their own if they please, but a backdoor would make it easier. Apple is therefore not obstructing the investigation, but pushing back against the overreach of government agencies.
The international business environment can be defined as the environment in different sovereign countries, with factors exogenous to the home environment of the organization, influencing decision-making on resource use and capabilities (Morrison, 2011). Global business environment can created challenges for companies that are found to be linked to unethical business practices. This paper discusses the code of ethical conduct of Apple Inc. and issues faced by the company on a whole when it comes to ethical behavior. Apple is a manufacturing, distributing and selling company. They sell a computer software and technology to stores all over the world. Apple is one of the world’s largest manufacturers and distributors of technology and they operate in around 10 countries.
It is safe to say that the FBI and the US Government are not seeing eye to eye with Apple at the moment. After the FBI ordered Apple to hack into one of their iPhones, CEO Tim Cook expressed his opinions. He stated how this was chilling, and would completely undermine the freedoms that the government is trying to protect. The reason why the FBI and US Government are doing this is because of the San Bernardino mass shooting. I also think that Edward Snowden may have said it best years ago.
Nobody likes anyone going through their belongings; however, the FBI (The Federal Bureau of Investigation) was trying to force Apple to go through somebody’s phone. A phone is very important to a person, it is like somebody going through your bag, house, or anything you own. The FBI should have sued the Apple corporation, because the Apple corporation has it’s right to decline the obtainability to enter into citizens private information, it is violating human rights.
Privacy is was too precious to trust in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I trust Tim Cook fully on this, and his words speak to me greater than the representatives of the Bureau. In an open letter to Apple Users Tim Cook addresses the issue at hand and in this letter he states "While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products" (Cook 2016). The requests that the FBI are making are simply wrong, and could lead to more problems. While the FBI may want to stop a terrorist they shouldn't force Apple for create something which could jeopardize other users.