The Importance Of The Iphone Dispute

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

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.

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

The FBI argues that Apple should give them access and break the encryption in order to open the cell phone of the San Bernardino shooter. In this case the

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”-The Bill of Rights. Apple should’ve let the FBI unlock the iPhone that the shooter for the December 2 shooting. An article by Tribune News Service”PRO/CON Should Apple have resisted pressure to hack an iPhone?” explores the pros and cons about Apple’s refusal to open the shooters iPhone.

Privacy is something that a very important to people, and smart phones are also important to people in society today. The very popular phone right now is an iPhone, and Apple has made softwares where people can not hack into phones that easily. When a shooting occurred in San Bernardino, the FBI demanded them to hack into one of the criminal’s phone, but Apple refused. By refusing to the FBI’s request Apple has respected the rights of the people and their privacy.In the article, “PRO/CON: Should Apple have resisted FBI pressure to hack an iPhone?” Expresses the fact that Apple has no right and should not let help the FBI in hacking a phone without the proper warrant.The Apple company now that the people have some private information and they are sticking to their word in keeping it private.

There has been on ongoing battle between the United States governments and Silicon Valley for years and the battle is only going to grow. These battles between these entities involve the security of iPhones and other devices and the government's desire to access these devices in certain cases. With the advancement of technology in the last decade there has been a valiant effort made by these Silicon Valley companies such as Apple to secure their devices and ensure to their customers that their data is secured.

FBI somehow have hacked the San Bernardino attacker's IPhone without the help of Apple. The FBI used brute force attack which is a method in which they teat out all possible passcodes without erasing the content in the phone. It only took the FBI 26 minutes to crack this phone wich is good because they could possibly stop terror attacks. I personally, am not afraid that the FBI has power and servalence, I am afriad of how much power the FBI has and how it can abuse it. When the FBI has power, its very hard to take it away from

While the stated intentions of the FBI are well meant, the backlash from the public suggests that both Apple and the people are concerned about violations of privacy. While the FBI claims to want the access just to search the suspects’ phones, it is believed that they could then use that information to hack into others. Another current news event that is putting the government in a negative light is the coverage of the upcoming elections. Because most of the coverage tends to be negative, candidates involved in the current campaign as well as current politicians are being cast in a less than favorable light, and at this point many people are having a difficult time deciding which candidate to vote

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.

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.

Apple is currently going through the court system a lot these days; being one of the biggest tech cases of 2016. The FBI and the U.S. government want to take over the control of the iPhone. They want Apple to override the encryption feature to be allowed to crack the password. Currently, the new features only allow the owner to crack the password. Apple is arguing that the request is a violation of Apple’s First Amendment rights.

Many Iphone users know that the FBI hacking into a phone can be threatening. Because Many articles state that the FBI hacking in a phone can be a growing concern. Many people know that the FBI hacking into someones phone can be a problem. According to the Should Apple have resisted FBI pressure to hack an iPhone article they state that “The FBI backed off because it

Currently, the United States is in a crisis: a privacy crisis. For several years now, cell phones have had encryption technology built in to defend phones from having their data breached and stolen by hackers. Phones have been secure against even the most intelligent criminals, leaving people with a reassuring sense of protection. Recently, however, the US government and the FBI have challenged such security in the court and plan to strip it to its bare bones to leave people vulnerable. The FBI has begun pressuring tech giants such as Apple and Google to create a “backdoor” into phones, allowing government agencies to achieve access to data on secured phones. This has led to great indecision over whether or not tech companies should be forced

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