The case between 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 to participate in a non-Muslim holiday event. After the shooting Farook and Malik was later killed by police during a standoff. When law enforcement search Farook and his property they discovered his iPhone. The FBI …show more content…
While espionage a crime of spying that only protects the federal government for the transferring state secrets on behalf of a foreign country, but if this only protects the government information Apple’s customers are not allowed the same protection. Especially if they pay for the service of protection that Apple promises in their policy. Forcing Apple to enable hacking can compromise the privacy of many users in order to assist the government, and it can also so effect their business and their customer’s personal information. The FBI reasoning’s behind the need to have a master key is also due to the U.S Patriot Act. The U.S. Patriot Act states that the law is intended to help government agencies detect and prevent possible acts of terrorism, or sponsorship of terrorist groups. Another issue is the paid for third-party that assisted the FBI in unlocking Farook 's phone, if a third agency could easily bypass apple 's software than the master key program that the FBI persuaded Apple to develop could be exploited by others. Criminals, domestic and foreign agency to these features by a mass surveillance system, through this national trade and secrets could be accessed by the wrong hands. The master key program is only a beneficial program to the government instead of Apple due to the fact the government could
Primarily, the FBI wants to protect American citizens from malicious threats, in this case terrorism. Unlocking the iPhone in question could give extremely important information, not only to the case itself, but to potential terrorist agents worldwide. The San Bernardino killers may have contacted others for assistance, and the FBI will not be able to bring them to justice without aid from Apple. The FBI cannot protect the American citizens, nor can it investigate crimes aided by the use of Apple’s electronic devices (in this case, an iPhone 5c) without Apple’s
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
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
If the United States of America allowed the FBI to enter Syed Farook’s iPhone, that does mean any other government can access any iPhone in the United States of America, which can hurt our government, and this forceful command of the FBI is against our basic rights as American
The FBI began in 1908, as a small offshoot of the Justice Department. Due to increased complexities that The Justice Department could no longer handle, President Roosevelt, through much controversy, commissioned the bureau to aid in the work of The Justice Department. The creation of the bureau did not come about easily, but with the support of Attorney General Charles Bonaparte, Roosevelt bypassed Congress to establish the force, which later became known officially as the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
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
Throughout the mid to late 1980s Katrina consistently provided valuable information to the FBI, some of her reports were even seen at the White House. Katrina and her family frequently went on FBI sanctioned trips to China and government events in the U.S. to collect information. During this time Katrina started another affair with Special Agent William Cleveland, however Cleveland did not disclose any information to her at any time nor tasked her to gather any information. During the late 1980s Katrina had only one incident where she made an unauthorized contact with the Chinese Consulate via a pay phone. However, the FBI did not do a full investigation, because she was an asset, and Smith did not even document that it even happened in her file. Even with the incident, Katrina passed multiple polygraphs in the late 1980s and was vetted of any wrongdoing. By the end of the 1980s, multiple analysts, a defector, and the CIA gave positive assessments of information Katrina was providing and rated some of it invaluable.
The case of Apple Vs FBI is basically the FBI trying to have Apple change their operating system (OS) in their phones so they can be encrypted if they need to be. Currently, Apple phones are set up to protect against hacking. The FBI wants to gain this access so they can stop a terrorist from being able to use mobile technology as means of harm and to gain knowledge of what the attack could be.
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.
With an open source program, anybody can create for the program, giving it a much bigger foundation for designers and gives them a greater sense of proprietorship as they can change whatever they like (Sacks, 2015).
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.
American Federal Agencies like the NSA (National Security Agency) and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) have tried to mandate a back door or master-key to company products such as the iPhone, to monitor everyone that owns one of the products. Government organizations sometimes snoop a bit too much. When the FBI was holding a terrorist iPhone, they requested that apple makes a new operating system where the FBI had a backdoor to access the system at any time. Apple declined, stating that what the FBI was asking for would amount to a master-key designed to access any iPhone at any time. Someone
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