What If Apple Is Wrong By Brian Bergstein Analysis

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 Computer Company is currently being thrown into a lawsuit in regards to specific information on a customer’s cell phone. The cell phone is known to have been used by the San Bernardino shooter last year. The information on that phone could be very beneficial to solving the case. However, privacy advocates argue Apple’s interference could be detrimental to basic human rights. Apple themselves argue writing a “master key” could cause problems with their cyber security. Not to mention the financial jeopardy it could put Apple in. The FBI counters the “master key” argument with the plea that they will only use it for one device. It’s not the use of the key Apple is worried about, it’s about the availability of it. If Apple releases information regarding the San Bernardino shooting, then it should cause a lot more problems than it could solve.

The recent case Apple vs. FBI has raised controversy over the priorities placed on national security and personal privacy. The controversy stems from Apple’s denial of access to an iPhone involved in the orchestrating an act of terrorism. On December second, 2015, a couple in San Bernardino, California, massacred fourteen people and seriously injured twenty-two others in a terrorist attack. One perpetrator, Syed Farook, worked for the county health department and possessed a county-owned Apple iPhone 5C, which may have stored some of his recent online activity. This data could provide information surrounding the terrorist’s affiliations, motives, or background. The phone was encrypted through Apple’s operating system and the FBI has been unable to unlock the device. A court order, requested by U.S. judge Sheri Pym ruled that Apple must provide a decryption program that would grant the FBI access to the phone. Apple

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 main problem Darrel addresses throughout the article is whether or not apple should engineer software for the FBI to allow them to unlock the iPhone used by the terrorists responsible for the San Bernardino attack. He then brings up the fact that “the FBI cannot mandate that apple create a backdoor to override the iPhone’s encryption features without creating a dangerous precedent that could cast a long shadow over the future of how we use our phones and internet for the years to come.” The problem with the FBI asking apple for this is a much larger one than people may think. Darrel uses logos, pathos, and ethos, throughout the article to help persuade and inform his audience that what is happening is a big ordeal. He then goes into detail supporting his thesis by explaining the many problems that could possibly arise.

Apple mentioned also in their letter to their customers that they were against terrorism. They continued to state that as a company they did everything in their power to help the FBI in investigating this case and catch these criminals. However, Apple did not want to risk its customer’s privacy because it was found that most apple product users store data such as private conversations, photos, music, notes, calendars and contacts, financial information and health data in their devices. Since Apple operates their company based on certain values – one of them being safeguarding their customer’s data, this prompted decision to deny the FBI the software or “backdoor that would’ve risked the privacy of millions of iPhone users. The FBI however is willing to do just about anything to solve a case, one that especially involves serious criminals investigates. Keeping this in mind you can see why the FBI refused to think morally in favor of Apple and how this backdoor software would’ve tarnished the reputation and decreased business for this company. However it is concluded both of these parties did what was ethically right for their independent situations, but as you can see what is ethically right for one situation is not necessarily right for another

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

On the last December,Farook’s and his wife killed 14 people in a mass shooting in San Bernardino. Because of the privacy features of the i phone,the FBI couldn’t not do anything without the apple store helping them.All the apple

Apple Computer Company is currently being thrown into a lawsuit in regards to specific information on a customer’s cell phone. The cell phone is known to have been used by the San Bernardino shooter last year. The information on that phone could be very beneficial to solving the case. However, privacy advocates argue Apple’s interference could be detrimental to basic human rights. Apple themselves argue writing a “master key” could cause problems with their cyber security. Not to mention the financial jeopardy it could put Apple in. The FBI counters the “master key” argument with the plea that they will only use it for one device. It’s not the use of the key Apple is worried about, it’s about the availability of it. If Apple releases information regarding the San Bernardino shooting, then it should cause a lot more problems than it could solve.

Johnson, Jon Swartz, K., Cava, M. D., & Swartz, J. (2016, March 29). FBI hacks into terrorist's iPhone without Apple. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/28/apple-justice-department-farook/82354040/

It is awful news to hear that, this assault has prompted the production of a misconception between the US Government security approach and the Apple 's security strategy, both of which work for US assurance and improvement. The court cases that have been led since this attck happened, are as yet battling about the issue, if opening of farook 's iphone ought to be bolstered or not.

According to POLITICO’s post, Feds Drop Fight with Apple over Terrorist's IPhone, dated March 28, 2016, the Federal government asked Apple to help them access a terrorist’s phone. Apple, with their strict privacy laws declined this request. This prompted a legal fight between the Federal government and Apple, who have been in conflict since the release of IOS 8, which encrypted data in the devices. The FBI insisted that Apple should make a backdoor for them to access the devices in case of a national security issue. The issue went to court and a judge in California ordered Apple to unlock the phone of which Apple did not comply. According to Apple, the move could make every Apple customer vulnerable to attacks and

At stake are two forces representing a critical dilemma of the post-2001 world: security vs. privacy. Fighting for security, the FBI is seeking “backdoor” access to the iPhone in question that was used by one of the two suspects in the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015. Defending privacy is Apple, Inc., designer and marketer of the Apple iPhone. The two suspects under investigation are linked with known terrorist groups, possibly ISIS, with definitive proof of these links locked away in the encrypted iPhone used by one of the shooters. Apple has built extensive encryption into its products, including the iPhone, in an effort to protect customers and users from unwanted privacy intrusion by hackers, either freelance or

Apple and the government have been arguing back and forth on whether Apple should make a backdoor to hack into criminals phones. Apple has resources that the government doesn’t have and they're willing to acquire them even if they go to court. Apple wants to keep people’s privacy protected and they respond with “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand”(Cook). Apple knows that if they do this then people are going to mislead the product. Tim Cook wants to keep his product up and running because if he does this then many things will go wrong such as security problems, downfall of stocks, privacy issues. Apple is doing this to keep us safe and let us have our freedom.