Personal devices, such as iPhones, can hold a wealth of personal and private dat

Question

Personal devices, such as iPhones, can hold a wealth of personal and private data that can typically only be accessed by entering a preset security code. A recent example of this scenario occurred in the San Bernardino tragedy. The suspect’s iPhone was thought to have very important information on it related to national security measures. Read Apple Vows to Resist FBI Demand to Crack iPhone Linked to San Bernardino Attacks, which reviews the conflicting views on whether the manufacturer should have assisted in breaking the encryption of the phone. Based on what you have read and recall about this case, which side do you support and why? Be sure to address important issues like legal rights, manufacturing responsibilities, personal privacy, ethical behavior, and justifiable cause.

Explanation / Answer

Answer)

Personal devices are the personal property of the individual and thus hold a wealth of personal and private data that can typically only be accessed by entering a preset security code. Thus this information is private and can be confidential.

The Apple vs FBI issue was that there was a concern wherein FBI wanted Apple's help to assist an iPhone which was obtained from a terrorist and wanted Apple to assist in unlocking the cell phone which is cryptographically protected and is secured with locks and obtain information such as data and information such as contacts, images, and other data which will be relevant in the investigation of the terrorist groups. The concern was there for writing a software which would be useful to unlock the iPhone to access and extract valuable information about the phone. The case is a technical debate among the FBI and Apple, where there is debate over that encryption and data privacy woes between government and Apple.

Apple was complying for the consumer interests who use iPhones where the FBI wanted Apple to assist in developing a software in unlocking the cell phone which is cryptographically protected and is secured with locks. Apple refused with reasoning such as that then the law enforcement would misuse this power and will use the software to unlock any iPhone. While FBI said that it was a one time request and would help them in solving terrorist cases.

The All Writs Act of 1789 authorizes the US Courts to issue measures necessary in order to aid the respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the law. The law has been revived to gain access to encrypted and protected mobile phones for terrorist investigations. Thus the All Writs Act was used by FBI to compel Apple to do the above task of unlocking the cell phone which is cryptographically protected and is secured with locks and obtain information such as data and information.

The phone was unlocked by a third party finally and not by Apple. The issue is resolved in the sense that FBI got access to the data supposedly and Apple stuck to defending the customer privacy rights. So, Apple maintained its stand and gave importance to privacy more than national security. Apple was ethically correct and maintained its stand for customer confidential data protection. Thus even though the case itself is off the tables, we do not think that the issue is still resolved and these kinds of issues with Apple or any other company are likely to arise again in future versus the Government or law enforcement.

Personally, I support Apple's side as Apple took a stand against a government agency to not leak confidential and private information. Legally, FBI was not able to force Apple to unlock the iPhone and thus All Writs Act of 1789 was forced upon Apple. Thus Apple as described above protected the personal privacy and maintained the manufacturing responsibilities.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.