Should Tech Companies Release Information Under A Warrant?

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

Ever since the cloudy day on September 11, 2001, when two planes crashed into the twin towers, the United States government has been cracking down on security. The Patriot Act, passed October 26, 2001, was an effort by the United States government to ‘crack down’ on terrorism. The act removed several legal barriers that blocked or restricted law enforcement, intelligence, and defense agencies from storing data about possible terrorist threats and collaborating together to respond to them. The Patriot Act was supposed to make United States citizens feel more secure but in reality it had the opposite effect. Around 2013, when confidential NSA documents were leaked it was found that several government agencies had used the guise of the Patriot Act to monitor millions of United States citizens. In fact, it was found out by several civil liberties groups that the Patriot Act applies to more than just terrorist acts. For example, Title II of the Patriot Act allows government agencies to tap telephone lines and permits the interception of messages that may be relevant to a criminal investigation. Further, the act allows authorities to provide access to any tangible thing(books, records, papers, etc). Today, March 2, 2016, fifteen years after the government was given permission to spy on most of its citizens, the government is trying to spy on all Apple iPhones through the use of a code cracking software.

Mr. Cook confirmed, in the interview with David Muir, that there is indeed a precedent, “Millions of Americans had their credit card information stolen last year [...] the smartphone that you carry probably has more information about you than any other devices, so millions customers could get hurt.” On the other hand, the FBI is proposing the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority. Based on “Legal Information Institute” from Cornell University of Law School, the All Writs Act means “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” If the government can demand Apple to unlock a customer’s iPhone using the All Writs Act, it would have the power to authorize Apple to build surveillance software to intercept private conversations, and even access health records without an individual’s knowledge. Apple does not only care about privacy, but also about public safety. Apple has provided the FBI all the information on the phone that it could early in the investigation; they also suggested that the FBI connect the phone to a familiar network so the phone would be able to backup to iCloud. However, the FBI directed the county to reset the iCloud password, which inhibits the phone to backup any information to the iCloud. If one of the hackers knew what the new software could do, he or she could easily hack into anyone’s phone. Although Mr. Cook found out about the lawsuit through the media rather than personally, he mentioned that Apple is still doing everything to help the FBI in different ways to find more information on Farook’s

The real question here is, What kind of world do you want to live in? According to an article in Fortune Magazine one person said, “The Federal Bureau Of Investigation is creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around.” A world where national security trumps personal privacy or would you rather live in a world where we have both national security and personal privacy. Amy Goodman from Democracy Now said in a segment, “In December, Farook and his wife killed 14 and injured 22 others in San Bernardino. The two were killed in a shootout with police.” The issue is that the agency has been unsuccessful in accessing the data in the phone, an iPhone 5C. We all remember when more than 100 A-listers were targeted in a colossal hack and Apple was under fire for “breaches” in the cloud. This was iOS 7 and the hackers targeted individual accounts. Since then Apple has released iOS 8 and iOS 9. Any device running iOS 8 or later has built-in security measures such as encrypted data tied to your passcode, push notifications when someone tries to restore your iCloud data on a different device, tries to change your iCloud password instead of an email as well as an auto-erase feature that erases all data on the photo when there 10 incorrect passcode tries and a delay between passcode tries. Therefore, the FBI cannot enter the iPhone’s data by brute force. The FBI believes that there might be some important

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.

On December 2, 2015, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook committed an act of terror, killing 14 people and injuring an additional 21 people. The couple was later linked to the terror group ISIS, prompting the FBI to attempt to gather information from Farook’s employer issued phone. The FBI pursued the US District Court of Los Angeles, which subsequently issued an order asserting Apple must provide “reasonable technical assistance” in unlocking the phone by providing three manners of assistance: allowing the government to enter more than 10 passcodes without the phone’s data being wiped, enabling automated entries rather than manual entries, and ridding of the gradually increasing delay system that occurs when multiple wrong

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

Apple Computer Company is currently being thrown into a lawsuit in regards to specific information on a customer’s cell phone. The cell phone is known to have been used by the San Bernardino shooter last year. The information on that phone could be very beneficial to solving the case. However, privacy advocates argue Apple’s interference could be detrimental to basic human rights. Apple themselves argue writing a “master key” could cause problems with their cyber security. Not to mention the financial jeopardy it could put Apple in. The FBI counters the “master key” argument with the plea that they will only use it for one device. It’s not the use of the key Apple is worried about, it’s about the availability of it. If Apple releases information regarding the San Bernardino shooting, then it should cause a lot more problems than it could solve.

Law enforcement officers can conduct warrantless searches for a variety of reasons. Some of the benefits are not having to wait for a judge of magistrate to sign off on it. If you can obtain consent from an individual it must be voluntary and stay within its scope, as well as the person giving consent must have the authority to do so. The search incident to lawful arrest exception is used every time an officer makes an arrest, this is to ensure their safety, prevent escape, and prevent destruction of evidence. This could be a body search, or a search within the area within a person’s immediate control. Police may use warrantless searches when exigent circumstances arise, such as when a warrant may be impractical, useless, dangerous, or unnecessary. These include danger of physical harm to officer or destruction of evidence, searches in hot pursuit of dangerous suspects, danger to a third person, and driving while intoxicated. Police can also use the special needs beyond law enforcement exception for public school searches, testing students for drugs, airport searches and searches of probationers and parolees.

Eventually the court ordered for it to happened, but the Apple kept its same stance. The feud between corporations and a government is a human issue that pertains to anyone who values privacy and inalienable rights. Many argue that giving up privacy for secret is not worth it. After Brussel Attacks, citizens are angry that they are given up privacy, but their governments have not been successful in combating terrorism.These initiative are a direct violation to the Fourth Amendment which states “Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, hall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” In order to search a person there has to a probable cause to do so. The Federal government is violating this statement by invading privacy. I began to do research on the topic, and found an interesting video where an adjacent professor at Seton Hall Law, Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Fourth Amendment was created to “protect the quintessential American right of the right to be left alone”. By the FBI intervening with the software, it goes against constitutional, privacy and human rights. All the spying has been unsuccessful, because the United States continue to have attacks on the homeland. A Recent example would be the Boston Marathon bombing where hundreds were injured after the fatality. Additionally, according to a recent report from a digital analytics firm comScore reveals that of the 184 million Americans owning a smartphone, more than 4 in 10 use and iPhone. For this reason, this issue pertains to all of us. This is an issue who should concern anyone with a cell phone, laptop and etc. To a certain extent I agree with Edward Snowden that the American people should be allowed to decide whether or not they approve of these government actions. Apple should preserve our

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 recent case between the FBI and Apple brought a worldwide ethical dilemma into the public eye, and it could have detrimental effects to the entire tech industry. The FBI wanted Apple to create backdoor access to encrypted data on one of San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, and Apple refused just as many other large tech companies such as Amazon and Microsoft are doing nowadays. This situation creates the ethical dilemma of whether the government should have complete access to all encrypted data, and how consumers will react knowing their private data is not actually private.

The tension between national security and individual privacy has long existed even before the development of digitized information. Recently, two main forces have advanced the debate over this balance to the forefront of the public eye: 1) the proliferation of data by private sector companies and 2) the heightened need for homeland security and public defense. With the rapid evolution of technology, companies have aggregated pools of consumer data to improve upon internal decision making. In some cases, however, this data can be leveraged to ensure national security and public safety. This juxtaposition of enterprise and security results in a blurring of the line dividing public and private sector responsibilities. The question becomes an issue of moral obligation versus legal responsibility. What are we as consumers and citizens willing to sacrifice in exchange for safety? And does the private sector inevitably succumb to obligations originating from the public sector?