Background:
As many of you are aware on December 2, 2015, a terrorist attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, occurred killing 14 people and seriously injuring 22. In the mass shooting and a failed bombing attempt perpetrators, Syed Rizwan Farooq and his wife Tashfeen Malik targeted a San Bernardino County Department of Public Health holiday party and training function of roughly 80 workers at a banquet hall. Farooq and Malik were killed later that day in a shootout with police officers. With the investigation still open on the attack and motive still unknown as to why the two engaged in such a horrific act, the FBI are trying to gather as much information as possible to try to piece together the reasons, planning, and thoughts of the attack and attackers. One very specific piece of evidence the FBI is holding vital to the investigation is the couple’s Apple IPhones, however like many the two had passcodes which are uncrackable thanks to Apple’s exceptional security systems.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting
Summary:
On February 16th 2016, a week after FBI director James Comey informed the Senate Intelligence Committee that the FBI still held the Iphones of the shooters yet could not get past the security system, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pymof the U.S. District Court Central District of California ordered Apple to assist the FBI in unlocking the IPhones.
The FBI needed Apple to reengineer its current operating system to get around the authentication safeguard. In english that means that the FBI needed Apple to give them a backdoor system that would allow them to get pass the screen that says that you disabled your phone because you maxed out on incorrect passcodes because the FBI could not guess the right code. Giving the FBI this system would be to give the agency access to the contents within the phone and an never before created or used technology.
Later that day Apple CEO Tim Cook issued a letter on Apple’s website titled “A Message to Our Customers” in direct response to the courts demand in which he stated from the get go “The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.” Cook goes on to discuss the extreme importance of privacy in this day and age and how the creation of such technology that the FBI is demanding is extremely dangerous. It will be detrimental to all apple users given there is no way apple could control how,when, and what hands such a system were to fall into making it possible for people who were untinted to have such a powerful system gain access to it. This would undermine all privacy Apple users have.
The FBI admitted on February 20th in a statement sent to Ars “the FBI worked with San Bernardino County to reset the iCloud password on December 6th, as the county owned the account and was able to reset the password in order to provide immediate access to the iCloud backup data…The reset of the iCloud account does not impact Apple’s ability to assist with the court order under the All Writs Act.”
According to an article published by the New York Times on February 24th “Apple engineers have begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhone using methods similar to those now at the center of a court fight in California, according to people close to the company and security experts.”
Many sides have been taken as this situation unfolds to show support to either the FBI or Apple. In the tech world big name companies are siding with Apple such as Microsoft and MacFee to show their support in striking down this request in order to ensure such a precedent is not created that could jeopardize their privacy as well. Some names like Bills Gates seem to have not sided with Apple and believe that the FBI is completely in line. Cook has taken many interviews and has spokenly openly about his discontent and stayed consistent with his views.
Apple’s response to the Justice Department’s motion to compel them to unlock a San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone deadline is by February 26th. Based upon prior comments and actions, it is expected Apple is to refuse under their First Amendment right. Arguing that rooted in computer coding is the protection to freedom of speech.
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-fbi-timeline/
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2716811-Statement-from-the-FBI-Feb-20-2016.html
Connection to Government:
As we are currently learning about the judiciary branch the importance of precedent is extremely influential in court decisions. One of Apple’s most crucial argument is that if the FBI was to be granted this access based off of the law being able to force Apple is something that could hurt Apple, Apple users, and all technology. Producing a system to crack into Iphones opens the floodgates to all other cases regarding privacy in not only technology but all other instances that the giver net could pull the security card to gain access to your private information.
Executive branch showed support to the FBI by Obama personally name former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and former IBM CEO Sam Palmisano as the chair and vice chair, respectively, of a new Commission on Enhancing Cybersecurity. The President did not directly speak on the topic but it shows as we learned how actions speak louder than words in politics.
Also the FBI may be able to apply the All Writs Act which in its most familiar form was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. This was of course a major part of the Marbury vs Madison case which we are very familiar with. This has the power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” as it states in the All Writs Act. Many believe it is an overreach of the judicial branch especially given there is no way to check such a power with immediate action that will affect its outcome.
Analysis:
61% of American households have at least one Apple product. Because such a large number of Americans own Apple products this case not only directly affects it is clear that this case will be sure to spark even more controversy than it already has. This “battle” twentieth FBI and Apple has raised serious questions such as where does privacy end and security begins in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people. It is a clear that the Apple does not just care about the way it will affect their sales but more of how dangerous such a verdict could be for the American people. The FBI was not to serve justice in a horrific crime that shook the nation. There is no clear side as to what and who is right.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/tech/gaming-gadgets/household-apple-products/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/smart-news/what-all-writs-act-1789-has-do-iphone-180958188/
Questions:
Do you believe that Apple should deny or accept the FBI’s request for such software?
Does our privacy as individuals and civil liberties come before our safety and efforts against terrorism?
What are the consequences and advantages to each of the two sides you picked?
Who do you think would have the stronger argument if this battle was to manifest into a court case? The FBI or Apple? Why?
image:
url: http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/fbi-vs-apple.jpg
pogo2currentevents 
I think that apple should accept the FBI’s request for such software because it is crucial in solving the case. Although privacy is an important factor that shouldn’t be violated, the FBI still needs to figure out what information they are missing. The iPhone could even be containing information on whether or not there could be another possible attack. The New York Times said “The only way out of this scenario, experts say, is for Congress to get involved.” But I think apple should be the one in charge of deciding. Since not everyone is having their privacy violated, I think that apple should allow the FBI to have access. This is also why I don’t think that privacy comes before out safety and effort against terrorism. If having secrets results in another person’s death then privacy shouldn’t even be a factor. The consequences of letting the FBI have control over iphones would be that they would always assume they have access over personal information. Like another New York times article said, “For Apple, security is also a global marketing strategy. New security measures would not only help the company in its fight with the government, but also reassure investors and customers.” So in cases that aren’t as bad as this, people could be taken advantage of. Some advantages would be that it eventually leads to a safer society. I think that the FBI would have a stronger argument if it came to cases because they are attempting to solve a case which is more important to them than privacy for anyone with iPhone products.
LikeLike
I think that Apple could not accept the FBI’s request for the software. Although it is true that the software is needed to solve the case, there is no way that the FBI can completely protect this software from falling in the wrong hands and being used for other things that could be bad for any apple user. Apple as a company is refusing to issue this software in protection of their costumer’s privacy. I think that our privacy as individuals should not come before our safety.However, the government should not take away our civil liberties and undermine our privacy in an attempt to stop terrorism. Advantages would be that we would not have our civil liberties being violated However, as a consequence this can also lead to more dangerous attacks. I think that Apple would have a stronger argument and therefore a better shot at winning if this was in a case. Apple would only be protecting their costumers as well as upholding the civil liberties that the constitution gave us, while the FBI would only be trying to force a private company into doing something they do not need to do.
LikeLike
Apple and the FBI need to create a compromise in order to look into the phones without Apple having to create a software that could be used negatively if in the wrong hands. I think that there could be a way for both parties to leave somewhat happy and satisfied. Apple appears to be cautious about the idea because they would need to create a software that does not exist and then trust that the government would only use it once and it would not get stolen and used by another person/party. The FBI has a valid point that valuable information might be on the phone, but they need to look at how a domino effect could occur if something went wrong. Privacy and civil liberties seem to be equally as important as our security and safety because if misused or left vulnerable, there could be catastrophic effects. Both parties have strong arguments, but Apple’s seems to be more appealing because it shows that Americans cannot fully trust their government. Our current government has proven to be unreliable and misrepresenting vital information, such as what Edward Snowden exposed. In one of the New York Times articles it stated, “But since the revelations of government surveillance made by Edward J. Snowden, companies have been retooling their products to protect against government intrusion.” Even large companies have been protecting themselves because, like Glenn Greenwald’s book title states, there is “No Place to Hide.”
LikeLike
I think that Apple should accept the FBI’s request for software. While i understand that such software has the slim possibility of falling into the wrong hands. Apple is being extremely cautious of it’s customers which is very respectable but we need to look at the bigger picture. This information could be the missing pieces in solving why a terrorists think think the way they do in regards to the San Bernardino shooting. In my personal opinion I think safety comes before privacy. If you have nothing to hide, what’s the problem? I could be bias because I want to go into the law enforcement agency so I see safety as a top priority. On top of that, do we as IPhone customers actually have all the “security” ? Lets not forget the ICloud hacks. When we purchase a phone I believe we throw our right to technological privacy away. If Apple wanted to read our text messages, I have no doubt that they absolutely could. Advantages of siding with the FBI is security and safety. I believe that the more resources intelligence agencies have, the better. In the age we live in own, technological resources are the key to preventing acts of terrorism. A consequence could be that this “backdoor” system could fall into the wrong hands, but I find that highly unlikely. The fact that “Apple engineers have begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhone” goes to show that Apple isn’t really looking out for all of it’s customers. I understand they want to respect the “privacy” of their customers, but this information could be preventing attacks, In my scale, preventing an attack holds much more of a priority. However, in the eyes of the court Apple may have the better argument since they are seeming to be “for the people”. It’s all about public perception. In this case, the FBI are labelled as the “bad guys” for just doing their job to protect the nation.
LikeLike
In my personal opinion, I think Apple should deny the FBI’s request for developing such software. Although, this could potentially reveal some key information in the case, I believe once this software is unleashed it can create a chain reaction. I believe this because I do not think the FBI will be capable of monitoring who has control over the software, and making sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. I understand why Apple denied the FBI’s request because as a corporation it concerns important guidelines about Apple users’ privacy, which could make some Apple users very concerned about their individual right to privacy. As we have seen in the past with the Edward Snowden scandal that arose questions concerning mass surveillance, it demonstrated the blurred line between personal privacy and addressing terrorism. Ideally, the purpose of amping up security is to protect the American public, and to catch any threats to American society. This creates the dilemma of what could be the possible consequences of increasing these intrusive tactics. Should the public sacrifice their privacy to increase surveillance in order to prevent future attacks? I do think in some aspects this could be used as an effective tactic by the government to monitor the internet in such an extensive way that can truly protect the American public. However, in the same respect it can also be used for the benefit of the government to gain more control over the average American. I think Apple has the stronger argument because the average citizen fears of the Government overstepping their boundaries and violating their constitutional rights. In the Constitution, it expresses the importance of protecting our natural rights. Most American citizens strongly agree with the sentiment that the founding fathers put together as the ten amendments to protect citizens rights, and that right to privacy was included in our natural born rights.
LikeLike
I think that Apple should deny the FBI’s request for the software. Even though it would help out the FBI in potentially finding crucial information to solve the San Bernadino case, I feel like it would be too risky to create such a software that they are requesting. The software could violate other Apple users’ privacy, which is a big issue. NBC News states, “Apple chief Tim Cook on Wednesday said that complying with a court order to help the FBI break into an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters would be ‘bad for America,’ and set a legal precedent that would offend many Americans”. Americans tend to consider their privacy a huge issue that is important to them and when it is invaded, they are not pleased with it, even despite it happening for safety purposes. Ideally, safety should come before privacy, but that is not always the case. In certain situations, which I feel like this is one of those situations, privacy and civil liberties should come first. Privacy and safety are equally important, but there are times when one outweighs the other. If one was always seen as more important than the other, it could cause distress. I think that Apple has the stronger argument because it can be supported by the Constitution. There are many Supreme Court cases that have dealt with privacy, such as Griswold v. Connecticut, where the Court ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. I feel like if this turned into a court case, it would be similar to Griswold v. Connecticut because Apple would be able to argue that the government would be violating their First Amendment rights and their customers’ Fourteenth Amendment rights by invading their privacy.
LikeLike
I think that Apple should deny the request to create software to unlock the iPhone. Creating a software that unlocks all the encryption that Apple has worked for years to develop and make their products favored because of the privacy ensured would completely undermine their progress as a company. Also putting that technology in the hands of the FBI is a stretch because although the FBI says that they will use the software only on this case that isn’t ensured. The FBI has a history of overstepping their boundaries like in 2014 where they believed Wei Seng Phua was running an illegal gambling operation but instead of following him and asking questions about him to others they wiretapped his home. Apple isn’t very sure if they release this information that the FBI won’t use it at their leisure. Although denying the FBI means that the company will be protected as well as its users it also means that there is information that is on the phone that the FBI isn’t able to obtain which could be a threat to the safety of those of us in the United States. I think that our civil liberties should come before protecting against terrorism soley because our civil liberties are in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights, and our basic human rights. Although I don’t feel like the majority apply civil liberties to companies like Apple as much as they do to individuals. Due to that I think that if this case were to manifest in court I think that the FBI would have a stronger case than Apple.
LikeLike
In order for Apple to abide by their word to their customers, I believe that Apple should deny the request to the FBI. There is still the great possibility that the case will go to trial and the court will order them to provide the FBI with whatever information they need. However, what the FBI is asking for is kind of extreme in comparison to all the other information they have been providing them. Because of this, it basically goes against Apples “code of honor” in terms of what they promise their customers. I would agree that our privacy and safeties come before the acts of terrorism against the country because jeopardizing our privacy and civil liberties can open the possibility of encouraging even more terrorism. In other words, hackers and those bad people out there who disrespect other’s privacy can put people’s business out there which can cause more and more lives to be at stake. By rejecting the3 FBI’s request, Apple wouldn’t be causing any further damage. They’re technically telling the FBI to work 2x harder in order to figure out this case and also find another solution to their problem of terrorism and connection to ISIS like they’ve always been doing. The consequences of accepting the FBI’s request is creating a master key to Apple products that could fall into the hands of the wrong people. The advantage is finalizing this case and possibly gaining information to further stop ISIS. The FBI would have the stronger argument because the whole country’s life is at stake, rather than just those people who own Apple products because not everyone in the whole country does.
LikeLike
I believe that Apple should deny the FBI’s request only because it is putting all apple users at stake for security issues. I agree with the concept that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t care, but I am thinking of security issues like credit cards and personal information getting into the hands of someone else. People do almost everything on their phones now a days so if something went wrong with the software it could end badly and Apple and its users could suffer tremendously. I think our privacy and civil liberties comes after our safety and efforts against terrorism to a certain extent. I think it makes sense for the NSA to monitor suspicious activity especially with the rise of technology. I think people still have privacy but they should just be aware that doing suspicious things could get them monitored. The consequences of not having as much privacy and civil liberties is that people might feel as if the government is watching their every move. Advantages to our safety and acts against terrorism coming before our privacy is that it can help prevent terrorist attacks and can keep the United States safe. If this battle was to manifest into a court case I think Apple would have a stronger argument because they don’t want to put their users in danger, especially when so many people have apple products.
LikeLike
I believe that Apple should accept the FBI’s request for software to unlock the iPhone. It will help the FBI know exactly what happened and why. It will help our country as a whole in our efforts against terrorism. I do not understand why Apple can not just make a software specifically for the FBI and this case without the fear of it getting into the wrong hands. I think that’s Apple’s job. I believe that the our privacy as individuals ARE, and completely involves our safety and efforts against terrorism. There are consequences and advantages to both sides. If Apple grands the FBI’s request, Apple could loose a lot of trust from their customers. This could highly effect the companies economy and reputation. On the other hand, if Apple does not grant the FBI’s request, they may not find the answers they need: What were the motives of Syed Rizwan Farooq and Tashfeen Malik.
I do not think that neither argument is stronger than the other. Katrina mentioned in her post, “Apple may have the better argument since they are seeming to be ‘for the people,'” but the FBI is “for the people.” They’re helping protect our family.
LikeLike
I am very conflicted if Apple should deny or accept the FBI’s request for such software. I’m conflicted because I can understand why it is a breach of personal information but at the same time, the couple committed a crime. If someone commits a crime and a warrant is issued allowing the FBI to search their house and personal items, their phone should be included. If the phone did not have a passcode, if the information was on a piece of paper, or even if it was in a locked box in the house (the FBI would get in it somehow), the information would already be available to them. The advantages of the FBI searching the phone is that more useful information will be given to them and they may stop another attack (in the Washington Post article that Maisie posted, it states, “The Justice Department sought the order ‘in the hopes of gaining crucial evidence’ about the Dec. 2 shooting rampage, which killed 14 people and injured 22.”) and the consequences is that people’s private lives will be exposed. Therefore, I do not think that our privacy as individuals and civil liberties come before our safety and efforts against terrorism. If you have nothing to hide, I personally don’t think there should be a problem with the government looking for target words in your private life. I would much rather be constantly watched and alive than giving my privacy and end up dead. The advantages to this is safety and the consequences of this is personal lives being invaded. I’m not quite sure on who would have the stronger argument if this battle was to manifest into a court case but if I had to pick, I would pick Apple. I would because in the terms and agreements there must be a privacy term that protects an individual, which I think would stand in court.
LikeLike
I believe that Apple should deny or accept the FBI’s request for such software because they have a valid reason that is crucial to the people of the US’s privacy and Safety. I do understand that it is also important for the FBI to solve the case of what happened in San Bernardino. At the same time i believe they should accept it because they need to find out what happened in that case and the information on those phones would definitely help. I think that if they kept this information private about the FBI needing Apples help for unlocking the phones, we wouldn’t know about it and it wouldn’t be a problem. Our privacy is important but our safety is more important.If we don’t have anything to hide on our Apple devices then it shouldn’t be a problem. Our privacy as individuals and civil liberties is important but our safety is even more important. Our safety should absolutely come before our privacy. The consequences of letting the FBI have the way of getting the codes our privacy is jeopardized, and the advantage would be the fact that they can solve the case and get more information from what happened. The consequences of Apple denying is not being able to get more information from the case and the advantage would be our privacy being protected. I think that the FBI would have the stronger argument because if they get the information on how to unlock the phone they solve the case and could also find a way to prevent something like this from happening again, they could even work with apple in order to protect us those with apple products, with an app or tracking device something high-tech. They could come together but in the end our privacy and safety are important but granting the FBI a way to unlock the phones should have been kept top secret and not made into a huge headline.
LikeLike
I believe that the FBI should only be able to ask for this software, but only on a case-by-case basis. If the case was as severe as this one, the FBI should be able to request access for the Iphone to be available at their request. Overall, our safety is more important than our privacy, so if there is nothing to hide then the FBIs efforts are in our best interest when they are performed under the right circumstances. If someone if committing a crime, a warrant is given to search their house and personal belongings so why should their phone not be a part of this. Apple should grant access to the FBI for this situation only because it was an act of terrorism. I believe that asking for a software that allows the FBI to search any phone whenever they please is a bit to much to ask but because the situation is this severe, their should not be an issue. The consequences of having this software will invade the privacy of apple customers. However this is necessary for peoples safety. The fact that FBI is asking apple to develop a software for FBI use at anytime, not just under these circumstances, weakens their argument because it affects peoples privacy and civil liberties when its not necessary. In this situation, Apple would have the stronger argument because they’re protecting their customers’ privacy.
LikeLike
I do not believe that Apple should abide by the FBI’s request. Should the federal government be entitled to unlocking a phone I am more than sure we have the resources and man power to override and hack a phone security system. Should it be that actually we are completely unable to hack this system then Ido believe Apple should work very closely with the federal government so then all of our resources are protected by such a strong security system. Also I believe that many people find that the lines are blurred when it comes to privacy vs security. Some people say that there is nothing we should be afraid to show the public, but it is still a necessary to understand that privacy is a life given liberty and thus we are all entitled to it. Therefore, our government should not under several circumstances be requesting and forcing us to give up our privacy for what we cant even agree upon is the best for this nation. There are many pro and cons that can lead to a persuasion for a outside reader, but it needs to be understood that privacy, like all birth rights should be protected and only crossed if absolutely necessary; not when it seems most convenient to our government, because they like everyone is not always 100% of the time right and thus they and their decisions should be questioned as well.
LikeLike
I don’t think that Apple should allow the FBI to be able to look into any of the company’s phones freely. This is due to the fact that we as people of the United States of America are entitled to our privacy, and our phones hold all of our private information in them. By giving the FBI the ability to look through all Apple phones, password or no password, then the FBI will be able to look through all of our texts, see who we talk to, what we say, etc., which is a huge invasion of privacy! I believe that safety should come before privacy, but that doesn’t mean that I want the FBI to have the ability to look through my phone. After all of the information that has leaked about the government keeping tabs on everyone in the country, why should they also be given the right to look through our phones and have a sort of “master key” to do so? As people of this country, we are entitled to our privacy, and just because there are some people who are insane enough to plan and go through with acts of terrorism, doesn’t mean that every citizen in the United States should be watched over through their most personal device. By not allowing the FBI to have the ability to look through every Apple Customers phone, it delays the reaction to acts of terror. Sure there’ll be acts of terror that could have probably been prevented if the FBI kept tabs on everyone, but it’s still unnecessary. Why should every person in the United States be kept an eye on just because a couple of stupid people would gladly go around killing other people in acts of terror?! I feel as if the government will feel differently than the people do. The majority of people will look at this situation in terms of wanting to keep their privacy private, but the government will look at the situation in terms of security. In a court case, I feel as if the FBI will have Apple beat, against the people’s will. By allowing the FBI the ability to look through our phones, then how much privacy do we really have left? Sooner or later the government is going to want to install cameras throughout our houses just to make sure we’re not being “suspicious” at home.
LikeLike
I am completely conflicted on whether or not Apple should deny or accept the FBI’s request for a software that can crack codes of phones easier. The reason for this is because although it will be a potential invasion of privacy, the reason for why they are doing it is to get information behind a case that caused death and injuries to many. Although it seems unreasonable I believe that making exceptions for cases like this should be allowed. Making it seem like if we give the federal government information like this they’ll abuse it, causes me to question whether or not the government could be trusted, since not even companies/ important people in government can trust them.
I’m still conflicted because I believe that our privacy as individuals here come before our safety and efforts against terrorism. The event already happened and to be honest it is not like they can change the fact it happen/ prevent it. If the circumstances were different and they were gathering information for the potential stop of a terrorist attack, then my answer would be different.
Consequences to not giving the information can be that these people were actually working with others who are planning future attacks on the US. Having that information will actually benefit because if that is the case they can stop. On the other hand, the advantage could be that they could potentially stop the people from going against the government due to them believing that their privacy is being invaded.
Although Apple has a strong case against the FBI when bringing up issues such as privacy invasion, I believe that the FBI will make a stronger argument and potentially win in a court case because of its big argument on the safety and security of the US as a whole. They have to protect everyone and that can’t be done unless they have the programs to make sure that they are ahead of those who want to cause damage to the country and its people. I believe that their main argument to stop potential terrorism will be the reason for why they will win against Apple. If you put it into perspective, although the people may think that their rights are being violated, the people in government who will potentially be the ones making the decisions know that there will not be a secure system if they don’t allow their federal groups like the FBI to do their jobs. Even if Apple was to win in a court case, the FBI will continue to do the job that they do to protect the people of the US and if they were to win, I am sure that there are potential compromises that they can do to get the information that they need.
LikeLike
I believe that Apple should not accept the FBIs request. Accepting the request would mean that Apple customers would lose trust in Apple and be paranoid that the FBI can access their information whenever for whatever reason. It would be nice to believe that if the government were to have access to your information, they would only use it when absolutely necessary, but this country does not have that kind of trust in the government. This would probably also give hackers an easier way to hack into apple products. For someone who owns various Apple products, I would be extremely paranoid if the FBI were to able to access my information through my Apple products. I would be paranoid about what I do with my phone or computer, even if I am not doing anything bad or wrong with them.
I believe that in this case, the terrorist act already happened. Yes, it would be helpful to know the exact motive, but knowing the motive will not stop the terrorist attack from having happened. Also, the FBI is not positive the phone will provide any help in knowing the motive. Therefore an individual’s privacy should go first in this case. Also, no one can truly predict when or why a terrorist act will occur. Yes, preventing terrorism is something everyone wants, but does that mean it should come at the expense of citizens.
The consequences of having privacy is that even terrorists and criminals have the same privacy. Them being able to hide behind their privacy can potentially hurt and endanger others. An advantage is that those who are just normal citizens can have their privacy and not be paranoid that the FBI can go through their phone whenever they want.
I believe that they both have very strong arguments. At the moment I think that the FBI would probably win a court case because the case involves terrorism. Also, if a judge already told Apple to help the FBI, why wouldn’t a different judge during a court case rule in the same manner? Although Apple is trying to protect their first amendment right, they might be obligated to help. Even if Apple is forced to help, I do not believe they will create a new system or software for the FBI or the government. Apple at most will help the FBI crack into the phones of the San Bernardino couple and try as hard as they can to get into it, but creating a back door system for the FBI will not be happening because it can potentially destroy the Apple company. Apple knows that it would be bad business because they might lose a lot of customers who want to try and protect their rights as much as possible.
LikeLike
Who do you think would have the stronger argument if this battle was to manifest into a court case? The FBI or Apple? Why?
Apple’s decision to deny the FBI’s request was a professional decision to uphold its integrity and custom popularity; which it had a right to do. The CEO stated how they believed the government was overstepping its bounds and that is all the reason the company needs. Our privacy only somewhat comes before our safety from terrorism. With that being said our movements everyday every minute when we are out in public are being monitored one way or another, therefore we have already given up a large deal of our privacy. Also the internet is constantly being watched by more than just the government; ISIS can connect to any person easily so no one knows exactly where they are. Also no one solution has been brought up to protect against other terrorist groups that can strike at any moment. So privacy is only moderately more important than safety and efforts against terrorism because the public has so little of both already. My side is to let things rest where they stand presently which does n increase danger but it does not increase safety either. I believe apple has a stronger argument because after edward snowden came out about data-mining, many companies have been held under suspicion and apple assisting the FBI would not appease the questioning public what-so-ever.
LikeLike
In my opinion , Apple should stick by their guidelines and policies in respecting the privacy of their customers . Reguardless of the nature of the case, Apple as a company made a promise to their customers to protect their privacy as stated in their terms and conditions . As an apple customer myself I feel more comfortable that Apple keep my privacy a secret just as I signed up for . There is a very fine of where personal privacy and nation security meet and that can be very easily blurred . However I do feel like there’s a way for the government to have investigations that do not directly invade the privacy of the American people. Terror attacks are simply a harsh reality of today’s society . The American people should not have to sacraficw privacy because the government wants to take the easy way out . The consequence of preserving the privacy of the American people is obviously the risk of terror and the timely manner of investigations. .
Alrhough that is an unfortunate reality , privacy is just not a right we should have to give . I believe the FBI would have a stronger case if it were to manifest into court . Terrorist is a large treat to the prosperity of the country and I cold see why the court would rule in favor of the fbi . However I don’t agree the privacy of the American people should have to suffer because of terrorism
LikeLike
I believe that Apple should deny the FBI’s request for such software because it is too risky. The FBI obviously wants it for a good purpose, to unlock the phone of a terrorist who held an attack, but it could get in the hands of the wrong person. Hackers could obtain this software from Apple and hack into people’s phones. People carry very important information on their phones such as credit card numbers with Apple Pay and many people have mobile banking apps on their phones which are linked to their bank accounts. This type of information is what hackers are interested in. Even though terrorism is a very dangerous thing that the government should try to monitor as much as it can, our civil liberties should come before our safety and efforts against terrorism. Even though if you don’t have anything to hide, you still don’t want the government to know everything about you, like who you call, and where you go. The advantages to privacy is that you feel safe and feel that no one is spying on you. However the consequence of this is that the government does not have the power to stop future terrorist attacks that can be predicted from information of terrorists’ phones. I think that the FBI would have the stronger argument if this battle was to manifest into a court case because the government is probably more concerned about National Security than people’s privacy on their phones.
LikeLike
I believe that Apple should not allow access for the FBI’S request for such software because it will open up another can of worms that would be unfortunate to those who have Apple products but no correlation to the incident that occurred. Privacy will be broken and some view it as unconstitutional. Honestly I believe that they are both equal, yet safety is very important. But if the situation occurred already and we moved on then we’re all set. All that it would mean is that there would be less evidence to use during trial. Advantage is that FBI would not have all the evidence needed to support their claim but then it would be a fault in that they would receive access to the Apple software and they may use their access to look into other things that they shouldn’t. I think Apple has potential in winning this battle because they are the owners of the privet company, yet the FBI does have a great upholding in the fact that it is a government agency and the courts generally favor their people, using credible reasons to support their claims.
LikeLike