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
Farook’s corporate owned iPhone (Brown, 2016, p. 8). However, when the FBI tried to unlock this iPhone, they discovered that the security system in place on it would erase everything on the phone if more than ten unsuccessful attempts to open it occur. As a result, the Department of Justice asked Apple to help them gain access to the phones data (Sydell & Wertheimer, 2016).
Farook’s corporate owned iPhone (Brown, 2016, p. 8). However, when the FBI tried to unlock this iPhone, they discovered that the security system in place on it would erase everything on the phone if more than ten unsuccessful attempts to open it occur. As a result, the Department of Justice asked Apple to help them gain access to the phone’s data (Sydell & Wertheimer, 2016).
from violating this rule? Not according to the FBI. In December 2015, the FBI recovered an iPhone (Apple Inc. cellphone product) at the crime scene of a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. The iPhone was claim to belong to one of the terrorists involved in the attack. The FBI has contacted Apple requesting that the company disables the security feature on the iPhone they obtained at the crime scene. Apple declines the requests with the thought of its customer’s privacy in mind. Even though the
company Apple and the FBI was caused by tragic event, the FBI needed an iPhone unlocked from a know shooter of a mass shooting in California. Syed Farook worked as an environmental health specialist for the San Bernardino County in California. Farook went to a Christmas party that was hosted by his job, he later shot and killed 14 and injured 22. The probable motive to Farook rampage was told on social media belong to his wife Tashfeen Malik. Malik stated that she didn 't think a Muslim should be forced
personal confidentiality and privacy, and the nation’s safety. Thus, these fluctuating variables has forced the public to review and reconsider how well the government should protect them and what they are willing to sacrifice for their safety. The dilemma lies in deciding what action should be taken against terrorism through information collecting but also the extent to which it is administered. Should the American public risk give up its civil freedoms and individual privacy for the sake of safeguarding
absence, and that I may not be blogging regularly for a while yet, but Apple is fighting an order that create a security crippled version of iOS so the FBI might be able to access the phone owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters. Understanding what they are looking for and why is crucial to understanding why Apple is fighing it and deciding whether the company should. Tim Cook pulled few punches in his open letter on why Apple is fighting, and he makes a good case. But what is the FBI 's case?
There has been a heated debate between the government and Apple on iPhone access. The F.B.I was conducting an investigation on a person they believe to be connected with terrorists. They wanted to gain more information by searching through the subject’s iPhone to find out more. Unfortunately, the F.B.I could not gain access into the phone because of the home screen passcode. They sought guidance from Apple to unlock the phone, but Apple had refused to give them service. They claimed that giving the
technology life; therefore, our information usually is stored in Laptop, iPhone, iPad or can be shared on social network. That is why Apple created an un-crackable encryption software. I support that idea. My Facebook account used to be logged in by a hacker, and I could not log in into my account. Fortunately, I was able to regain that account through my email. Therefore, when I read Darrell Issa’s article “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent” that was published in Wired Magazine
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