Summary Of What's Really Going On By Kim Zetter

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

For many, the idea that government could could have access to all of an individual's personal information by manipulation of ciphertext is a violation of free speech. The applicable part of the First Amendment here prohibits the making of any law, "abridging the freedom of speech” (The First Amendment). There are an abundance of ways to communicate, we can write words, we can talk, we can take photographs, we can draw pictures. The Northwest Public Radio (NPR) published the article, “ Apple's First Amendment Argument” it states that, “during the 1990’s. There was a confrontation in court on whether code, or encryption, is a form of speech”. A student at University of California by the name of Daniel Bernstein, created an encryption software called Snuffle. He attempted to put it on the Internet, the government made an effort to stop him, using laws that were meant for the restrictions of firearms and ammunitions. Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law argued in the NPR article, “In Fighting FBI, Apple Says Free Speech Rights Mean No Forced Coding” that Daniel Bernstein's code was a “form of speech and therefore protected by the Constitution”. Goldman was saying “I believe that privacy is important and I'm going to use this software as a platform to protect this right”. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that software is a form of speech and has been treated as such ever since. Therefore if software code is speech, Apple claims the First Amendment also means the government cannot force Apple to comply with its cause. The FBI wants Apple to write software code to help it break into the iPhone. The opposing side of this argument is lead by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The government is concerned that technology’s security will prevent them from maximizing the safety of the U.S. citizens.

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.

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

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 has the right to resist the FBI’s pressure to hack Syed Farook’s phone. Some say that Apple had no right to resist because the FBI are working on a case, but to hack into someone’s phone breaking their privacy, which is violating the Fourth Amendment. On Google, the fourth amendment clearly states, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The amendment does not say that third parties can force people to help aid the Federal Government. The FBI has no right to invade on Farook’s life. Some again say, yes they do, they are trying to protect Americans from future bombings, shootings, and any other types of terrorism. However, this may be true, it

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

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.

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

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 has satisfied the warrant issued by the government to the best of their ability. There is an implied social contract between citizens of the United States that living in a liberal democracy; one must give up some freedoms for the public safety of all. However, the FBI is asking for the exact opposite from Apple by asking them to give up the freedom of one iPhone that can potentially harm the freedom of millions of iPhones. The magistrate on behalf of the federal government issued a warrant on Apple to give up the data stored on an iPhone by hacking into the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter. Case law is on the government side with Smith v. Maryland, which there is no expectation of privacy for information given to third parties. The courts have issued warrants on third parties before, and the data contained by these third parties had to be turned over. But Apple does not have the data the government is looking for, and the government knows this. The government is trying to force Apple to create software to get into iPhone. The warrant to search the phone is valid, the government has the phone, there is no prohibition from searching the phone, and Apple is not holding data from the phone. The warrant has been satisfied. The shooter no longer has an expectation of privacy. However, all other Apple iPhones and product user besides the San Bernardino shooter does have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And that is why Apple never created a decryption key for their

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.

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.