The Pros And Cons Of Hacking

I believe that the government has good reasoning to want to go through our phone conversations and e-mails, but that doesn’t make it right. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate. This means that they can’t just go against the United States Bill of Rights and dig through people’s electronic devices. Part of the first amendment states you have the freedom of speech. If you have freedom of speech and the government is watching and listening to your conversations and you accidentally say something that sounds like terrorism but you happen to be joking, they can arrest you because they are suspicious. Both

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.

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 USA Patriot Act of 2011 was designed to equip law enforcement with other weapons to expose and inhibit terrorism and to aid in the fight against drug trafficking. (DOJ. (n.d). p. 1). However, for the FBI to look into anyone’s phone, they must have probable cause and get a warrant

A federal judge ordered apple to help unlock an iPhone belonging to Syed Farook for the FBI, in which apple declined. Their logic behind declining the FBI’s request was that they would have to write new software that would be capable of opening hundreds and millions of phones. Apple executive Tim Cook argues that if the FBI could access this iPhone, nothing would stop them from doing it to many others. With these recent events the legal battle between the FBI and apple has reached its closing point, as the FBI found a way to hack into the apple device themselves. With this new information what privacy do we have if any information can be accessed regardless if it’s personal or protected?

According to Appleinsider.com, the privacy advocates at Apple argue that if the government is granted the right to access the information on that phone, it could be in violation of a couple privacy laws. For instance The Privacy Act of 1974. “The Privacy Act of 1974 provides safeguards against invasion of personal privacy through the misuse of records by Federal Agencies” (U.S. State Department, 2016). When this law was written, the definition of “records” obviously didn’t account for text messaging records. However, as the law is written, the government is not

The FBI should not force Apple Computer to create a backdoor to access the personal information stored on the Apple iPhones because it would go against the interests of Apple. According to the CNN article by Peter Bergen stated, “In addition, the firms argue that if it is known they have given the U.S. government such a backdoor, then consumers around the world will be leery of using Apple and Google and other U.S. technology products. Many tens of billions of dollars are therefore at stake.” The company Apple would lose billions in profits if they are forced to open up the software backdoor. Customers would become suspicious and distrust Apple, forcing the company to lose their customers. Also, the FBI should not force Apple Computer to create a backdoor to access the

Would you be better off allowing officials/FBI’s prying into your phone to check for suspicious activities or not? For such case like this, it is very difficult to decide immediately, but still yet others might argue that it is not safe for officials to inquire too closely into someone’s private affairs. After the San Bernardino terrorist attack that left fourteen people dead, the FBI is currently negotiating with Apple CEO Tim Cook to help decrypt data including passcode stored on Syed Rizwan Farook (terrorist) iPhone 5c. Without the passcode, it’s extremely difficult for feds to investigate more on the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

Most people have a lot of personal information on their cell phones, from phone calls to pictures of them and their friends. I think that the government should have access to one's cell phone information without a warrant, but with very specific restrictions for when they can look through your phone and why. Normally, the government needs a warrant to search your things ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution)

The FBI has been trying to get Apple to create a script so iPhones can be accessed. The FBI put up a lawsuit against apple to try and get them to create a script on iPhones so they could access the phone of Syed Farook, who took place in the San Bernardino shooting. The FBI wanted a script that would get rid of the security feature that locks the iPhone after ten failed attempts. But, the lawsuit was dropped because the FBI found help from a “third party” organization. The FBI should not be able to access Personal iPhones without a warrant to search, because The fourth amendment makes it so that the government has to have a warrant if they want to search somebody.

The replication crisis is a topic that has gained a fair amount of attention in the past years. It centers on the finding that numerous of the studies that have been conducted in the field of psychology cannot be replicated. Only recently a paper was published in Nature stating that less than half of the studies in psychology can be reproduced. It has been shown that this effect is not only applicable to studies of the psychological science, but also to medicine, technology, mathematical sciences, and many other disciplines in which research is being done.

The right to privacy and protection from government abusing power has been a debatable topic for centuries. Many American people struggled for years, arguing in courts, and proving their right to privacy and protection. It is the fourth amendment that clearly states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated-…” So shouldn’t the government refrain from violating this rule? Not according to the FBI. In December 2015, the FBI recovered an iPhone (Apple Inc. cellphone product) at the crime scene of a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. The iPhone was claim to belong to one of the terrorists involved in the attack. The FBI has contacted Apple requesting that the company disables the security feature on the iPhone they obtained at the crime scene. Apple declines the requests with the thought of its customer’s privacy in mind. Even though the FBI does have probably cause, forcing the company to comply to their request will contradict Apple’s privacy policies that are insured to their customers. Should the government be allowed to force Apple to betray their customers?

Abstract: The state of security on the internet is bad and getting worse. This assignment analyse the importance of being about ethical or ethical behaviour. One really important reason for exhibiting ethical behaviour and being ethical is that its inspired trust and trust is very important thing when you looking for people to engage you in the activity of ethical hacking. They would like to make sure that you not gonna bounced the exceed of your authority and also you are not going to do something which damaged their infrastructure or their reputation or their system or any critical data, as with as testing hacking comes with risks and its important always get permission before you do anything with the client or any sort of engagement.In today’s world either public or private organizations they migrate there data and critical functions to the Internet, where the intruders have more opportunity to gain access on their sensitive data (information) using some web related applications. So, Ethical hacking is an evaluation to test and check an information technology environment for possible fragile links and vulnerabilities. Ethical hacking can also describe that it is the process of hacking a network in an ethical way, therefore with good intentions.

The argument between two hackers who say that it is the responsibility of the owners of the computer system to provide adequate security to keep hackers at bay are completely wrong. Neither their argument nor their perspective holds ground. Before we look into the reasons behind why they are wrong, it is important to first comprehend in detail about hacking and hackers. So what is hacking?