Typing Template For Apa Papers

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

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

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.

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

After the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, the United States government, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in a dispute with the technology company Apple. The FBI seized the iPhone of Syed Farook who along with his wife Tasfeen Malik killed 14 people and injured 22. Farook and his wife were then killed in a shootout with the police. However, the FBI could not bypass the security code that Farook placed on his phone, and access information within the device. Therefore, the bureau requested that Apple create a backdoor which is a mean of access to a computer program that bypasses the programs security measures. Apple refused to comply with the bureau’s request as the company argued that it would jeopardize the privacy of their customers and is an overreach of state power. Thus, the conflict was going to be decided legally, until the FBI canceled the first court hearing with Apple. The FBI was able to unlock Farook’s phone without Apple’s help through a third party company. But the government’s actions set in place a dangerous precedent. By creating a back door, the government is able to access information on any Apple device and has weakened the company’s cyber security. To prevent further legal disputes, Congress and the president should create a modern law that can balance the interests of national security and privacy in the 21st century.

On February 16, 2016, a United States judge working in the District Court of Los Angeles ordered the technology company Apple to help the FBI break into a work phone previously owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters. Apple was expected to assist in bypassing a feature of the iPhone that deletes its contents after a certain number of password tries. This would allow the FBI to enter an infinite number of passcodes, eventually cracking the iPhone. However, Apple denied this request, and appealed the initial hearing. Apple said that doing what the FBI asked would not only go against it’s First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights but, also, would endanger privacy of iPhone users everywhere. Apple is right in standing up to the FBI on this

Use the first sentence or sentences of the introduction to grab your reader’s attention and let them know what the main idea of your paper is. The introduction of the paper begins here in the first paragraph of your paper, on the line following the paper title. Indent the first sentence of each paragraph by pressing the tab key on your keyboard. Double-space throughout the paper, including the title page, abstract, body of the document, and References page. APA uses a traditional font style such as Times New Roman, and a 12 point font size.

My topic for the research paper will focus on the Apple vs FBI case with the San Bernardino terrorist shootings and the FBI requesting to gain access to the killers locked phone. I will review whether the FBI has the right to gain access to the phone and if Apple has the right to not help out the FBI with gaining access to the phone. I will also bring up alternatives that the FBI could use to get into the phone. My personally opinion is I don’t have an issue with the FBI trying to gain access to the terrorist shooters phone if it will help to prevent further attacks against the United States and allies. The reason FBI officials want access to the phone is there is encrypted data in the terrorist phone and its GPS system which may hold vital

December 2, 2015, San Bernardino, 1 year ago Friday a mass shooting and attempted bombing to place in our own state of California. Such attacks as this has become increasingly more frequent occurrence in the United States, with it there comes a dilemma that detectives judges, and federal agents have to go through after such attacks. “Should tech companies release encrypted devices information under a warrant?” Right after the attack on San Bernardino there was criticisms that the major tech company Apple should in fact give the police the data on the phone,after major back and forth it was clear Apple was not interested in doing so. They ended up settling on stopping the phone from deleting data after many incorrect attempts. James B Comey of the FBI in a statement to the Washington Post stated “It has been two months now, and we are still working on it,” (Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post). After the FBI requested Apple to break into the phone there was a number of controversies going along with it, I personally believe that if it is in a dire situation such as the San Bernardino attack then yes, tech companies should help the FBI before another major occurrence happens. However I don 't mean that after every crime or situation try to access someone phones, this would be a clear invasion of someone 's property. We also shouldn 't respond to a fearful situation so hastily, but if need be and there is evidence that in

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.

In December of 2015, the government wanted Apple to unlock and allow them to view all the files of a terrorist's phone. Apple denied their request and told them it was against the terrorist’s rights. This wasn’t the first time Apple was asked to decrypt one of their products. Apple protected the rights of the people by not allowing the government access to their personal information.

According to the article “Apple’s FBI Battle Is Complicated. Here’s What’s Really Going On”, by Kim Zetter who wrote, “THE NEWS THIS week that a magistrate ordered Apple to help the FBI hack an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooter suspects has polarized the nation—and also generated some misinformation”. The FBI claims this is the best way to protect the citizen who are customers of Apple as well is to create a software that would give them access into customers privacy. The incident that occurred on December 2015 which was an act of terrorism, has citizen believing that exposing their privacy would protect them. However, they are completely incorrect they are just exposing himself. Citizen are protected by the constitution and this forced act upon Apple has been a violation of the 14th amendment the protects the liberty of personal privacy. All in all the FBI is wrong for forcing the Apple company to expose millions of customers so they could have a leads into cases. The criminal is not the one act risk, it those who have given up their

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 use of phones has become such a vital part of our lives, they contain so much of our life’s information, should this be open to the government in some cases? The main questions to be asked about the F.B.I’s request to apple. How open would the use of a master key expose other citizens who are not terrorists? Why the government doesn’t solely investigate Syed Farook iCloud data? Why doesn’t the government get their information from just 3rd party applications that the user downloaded on his iPhone? Could this “backdoor” be used by foreign countries such as china for not as justified reasons, such as what would be viewed as treason in non-democratic countries? Why the government cannot access the information being stored on the iPhone? This sensitive information should not be opened using a backdoor, due the vulnerability it would open to hackers. Through the answering of these questions supported by direct quotes and facts, it will become apparent the dangers and risks associated with the “Brute Force” technique.

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