Why The Government Shouldn 't Be Allowed On Unlock Anyones Iphone And Go Through Their Personal Information

Is anyone’s private information contained in their cell phone actually private? Are appointments, bank information, conversations, the user’s location or other sensitive personal information truly confidential? Is there a Big Brother watching? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions. From the beginning of time to now, privacy has become more and more scarce. Through new developments in technology, it is hard to believe that someone is not watching your move at any given moment. The government’s job is to keep Americans safe, but where is the line drawn? Where is the difference between having a reasonable doubt and accessing information solely because these government officials have the power to do so? The government has infringed upon the rights of the American people when it comes to this topic.

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.

For many, the idea that government could could have access to all of an individual's personal information by manipulation of ciphertext is a violation of free speech. The applicable part of the First Amendment here prohibits the making of any law, "abridging the freedom of speech” (The First Amendment). There are an abundance of ways to communicate, we can write words, we can talk, we can take photographs, we can draw pictures. The Northwest Public Radio (NPR) published the article, “ Apple's First Amendment Argument” it states that, “during the 1990’s. There was a confrontation in court on whether code, or encryption, is a form of speech”. A student at University of California by the name of Daniel Bernstein, created an encryption software called Snuffle. He attempted to put it on the Internet, the government made an effort to stop him, using laws that were meant for the restrictions of firearms and ammunitions. Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law argued in the NPR article, “In Fighting FBI, Apple Says Free Speech Rights Mean No Forced Coding” that Daniel Bernstein's code was a “form of speech and therefore protected by the Constitution”. Goldman was saying “I believe that privacy is important and I'm going to use this software as a platform to protect this right”. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that software is a form of speech and has been treated as such ever since. Therefore if software code is speech, Apple claims the First Amendment also means the government cannot force Apple to comply with its cause. The FBI wants Apple to write software code to help it break into the iPhone. The opposing side of this argument is lead by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The government is concerned that technology’s security will prevent them from maximizing the safety of the U.S. citizens.

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

Mr. Cook confirmed, in the interview with David Muir, that there is indeed a precedent, “Millions of Americans had their credit card information stolen last year [...] the smartphone that you carry probably has more information about you than any other devices, so millions customers could get hurt.” On the other hand, the FBI is proposing the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority. Based on “Legal Information Institute” from Cornell University of Law School, the All Writs Act means “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” If the government can demand Apple to unlock a customer’s iPhone using the All Writs Act, it would have the power to authorize Apple to build surveillance software to intercept private conversations, and even access health records without an individual’s knowledge. Apple does not only care about privacy, but also about public safety. Apple has provided the FBI all the information on the phone that it could early in the investigation; they also suggested that the FBI connect the phone to a familiar network so the phone would be able to backup to iCloud. However, the FBI directed the county to reset the iCloud password, which inhibits the phone to backup any information to the iCloud. If one of the hackers knew what the new software could do, he or she could easily hack into anyone’s phone. Although Mr. Cook found out about the lawsuit through the media rather than personally, he mentioned that Apple is still doing everything to help the FBI in different ways to find more information on Farook’s

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.

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

The signees concede with the government, FBI, and U.S. citizens regarding terrorism. They agree all of them “want to take aggressive steps to reduce the threat of terrorism” suggesting that the authors can see both sides of the argument so Lynch will listen to their request for an end to the FBI’s efforts to force Apple to create the software.

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.

Opposing Apple’s argument, the F.B.I emphasizes national security. With the disposal of the information stored on the phone, the U.S. Government could in theory prevent pending terrorist attacks. Regretfully, there is no way to ensure that the “backdoor” that would be used in this case, would only be used once. In his open letter, Tim Cook illustrates his regard to the plan:

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.

In the Last Week Tonight episode covering the topic of encryption, John Oliver uses a variety of examples, sources, and sarcastic or crude jokes. He defines encryption as a way to keep others from gaining access to all of your personal information on your devices. This includes all of your pictures, banking information, emails, and anything else you wouldn’t want hackers to get ahold of. He demonstrates the importance of encryption by showing a video clip where two hackers were able to shut down a car while it was driving on the interstate. This leads into what Oliver’s argument is mostly about; the conflict between the FBI and Apple over a cell phone. A terrorist’s phone that has been recovered by the FBI cannot be used to obtain potentially

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.