The Importance Of Apple Unlocking The Cellphones In Tim Cook's A Message To Our Consumers

Subsequently, I think Apple should try and use the patch method to unlock the iPhone for several reasons, instead of not unlocking it at all. The iPhone's owner is a gunman, a shooter, and it would seem quite wrong to not unlock it to figure out anything, like who was this person, what are his plans, what made him like this. Technically, Apple has the right to refuse to unlock the iPhone, but we need to solve this issue, and protect ourselves from future terrorists to use iPhones. There is another problem, and it is that if Apple decides to work with the FBI to break the laws just to break into their own iPhones, other foreign governments can use Apple to break into iPhones from owners that don’t live in the US. This means that Apple will have to work more with others and give up time to use the iPhone. I think Apple should have some time to unlock the iPhone just for the FBI so they can have access to the terrorist’s plans. Terrorism in the US is a very critical problem and is very serious and Apple will need to solve the way to unlock the iPhone without giving up privacy and security to the FBI. Apple will need to find a way to make the iPhone unlock without the FBI knowing how to and other foreign governments also. If Apple does not succeed to unlock the iPhone, or gives up both privacy and security, then having an iPhone really looks like there is no specialty or difference between Android phones. If Apple decides to unlock the iPhone just for the FBI, this

Now for the case that has kept the nation on the edge of their seats, we have Apple v. FBI. This has really split the nation as people are torn apart by wanting to side with the makers of their beloved iPhone or the government that has given many their freedom. This all started with a tragedy, unfortunately, the tragedy the San Bernardino shooting. After the terrorists were killed, the FBI obtained the iPhone from one of the shooters and believed that they could find more information in it. They turned to Apple in order to open up the phone, as iPhones are set to ‘self-destruct’ all data after 10 failed password attempts. Apple flat out refused. In a letter to the public sent out by Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, said, “Once the... way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.” This essentially is saying that someone could come along after the phone had been

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

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.

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.

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.

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

In their letter to Attorney General Lynch, famous writers and artists- Apple supporters- compel him to end the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s efforts to force Apple to create a software that could enable the U.S. government to unlock any iPhone in “End Efforts to Compel Apple to Crack iPhone”.

In recent years Apple has come under fire over their company’s views on the security and values that they hold. Apple is very focused on their customer base, they pride themselves on having a great security software program that is harder to hack, and software that protects their customers from invasion of privacy. December 2,2015 in San Bernardino, California a terrorist attack was made against innocent civilians. 14 innocent lives were taken in this attack; the terrorist were found to be using Apple’s IPhone. In New York, a high level drug dealer was busted, he was using an IPhone and claim he forgot his password. Apple has since then come under scrutiny from the Federal government to assist them, while many of their customers are backing

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

While Apple’s debate is important, the data on the San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone may contain pertinent information identifying other terrorists and malicious plots, thus making access to the information a matter of national security. The hunt for terrorist information began with the attack on the Twin Towers which marked the beginning of the American “War on Terror,” as described by President George W. Bush in 2001. In an effort to neutralize the numerous threats to the well-being of Americans, the government employed certain surveillance techniques that, according to the NSA head General Keith B. Alexander in 2013, have helped prevent “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11 including at least 10 homeland-based threats” (Savage). In order to save at least ten lives, the NSA had to collect information from the American people and the San

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.

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 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