LEARN MORE...

Home
Documents
October 2021
5
Untitled document edited 34

Untitled document edited 34

Content type

User Generated

School

Colorado Christian University

Uploaded By

XvbxbOra

Pages

Showing Page:

1/3

Josh

Prof McFadden

English 101

10/4/2021

Should Apple Help the FBI Unlock iPhones?

Government versus Apple is a war concerning the right thing to do, whether to protect human

lives from locked information from their devices or preserve privacy and security confidentiality

from user-locked iPhones. Apple denies unlocking clients' devices without their consent, but the

government insists on opening suspect phones to investigate terrorist activities and national

security. Apple upholds the policy of protecting encrypted private information confidential. The

government requires access to iPhones, creating a battle that is undeniably challenging to win.

Even if Apple should comply with permitting the access of encrypted information when the

suspect's phone is associated with terrorism, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should

remain restricted from using customer information for other purposes. There is a need to tweak

more on a situation where Apple should allow access to their customer's information through an

issued warrant by the Court. Apple Inc. should help the FBI unlock suspects' iPhones due to the

threat of national security and suspicion of a terror attack or criminal felony, yet it breaches the

customer's confidentiality, and privacy is that as it may opening the suspects' device helps to

save lives of people in danger.

Apple should be bound to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI unlock suspect iPhones

regarding national security threats. The company should comply with any investigation regarding

terrorism and any crime associated with a felony. Burum and Holmes state that "FBI announced

that it was unable to unlock the county-owned iPhone because of its advanced security features"

(11). It implies that Apple is the only company with access to unlocking their product, the

iPhone. The unlocked iPhone can help the FBI investigate whether a suspect has a connection or

information concerning criminal activities and terrorism.

Similarly, after investigations are done and acquire enough information possible to determine

there is or no felony or terror attack, the Court and Apple should collaborate to enable law

enforcers to have full access to suspect phones. Thus, Apple is responsible for keeping their

customer's information private and allowing law enforcers to access a suspect phone to identify

whether they are involved. However, Apple should monitor the suspect's "the customer" phone

data description and how the information will present itself in the investigation.

Moreover, Apple should unlock iPhone to help the FBI find leading evidence of any suspicious

terror or felony. It implies that obtaining a Search Warrant is a priority of the FBI to enhance

accountability in searching a suspect's phone to gather evidence or information connected to

suspicious activities threatening national security. Apple said it has complied with the FBI on the

Pensacola case and has "Given up all the data it has to the government" (Swisher 2). He

continues to say that Attorney General William Barr accused Apple of not allowing authorization

to unlock suspect phones, while Apple reiterated stating that he needed the codes to access any

phone he wanted (Swisher 1). Apple needs only the Supreme Court to authorize a judge or

Showing Page:

2/3

magistrate to issue a warrant by determining whether the case associated with unlocking iPhones

has probable cause. Due to strict iPhone policies of confidentiality, the FBI must obtain access to

the suspect iPhone after providing evidence leading to probable cause. The implication is that

these last shreds of evidence provided to Apple Company can help them believe the search over

the suspect phone is justifiable.

Apple argues that providing help to open iPhones poses a cyber security threat. The claim is that

unlocking a customer iPhone can produce a code that can make all users' private information

vulnerable to cyber-attack. According to Nicas, Apple CEO Tim Cook complains that decrypting

unlocking the iPhone is a threat in that "Creating such a backdoor would compromise the

security of every iPhone" (3). The threat not only affects the US government but foreign

government and the criminal system. Fortunately, Apple has a justifiable stand of denying access

by refusing to unlock their client's iPhone without their consent. The user information should

remain confidential unless it involves criminal activities that endanger other people's wellbeing.

Apple demands that the description of the electronic device subjected to search and seizure

should be valid provided with a sworn statement.

However, the argument is a slippery slope as it does not justify why Apple is refusing to unlock

the iPhones due to customers' privacy, even if it can lead to crucial information about the

terrorist shooting or attack plans (Burum & Holmes 16). Even if unlocking an iPhone might

make private information vulnerable, protecting users' information is more important than

shielding the lives of people at stake due to the danger of terror attacks or felonies. Therefore,

Apple should provide an exception of helping the FBI save and protect human lives as the

primary priority when the country is under terrorism threat.

To sum up, everything stated so far, Apple's justification for the exact purpose of not helping

unlock devices is due to terms and conditions associated with keeping users' information private

and confidential. The company is against allowing the government and criminal system to access

personal information protected by security policies. It wants to maintain encrypted software as

their agreement with iPhone users agreed when purchasing the device. The FBI wastes a lot of

money and time during the investigation due to Apple's refusal to provide permission to search

suspect electronics. The iPhone might provide crucial evidence which can be applied to close the

case and find a solution before the danger happens. Apple should unlock suspect iPhones when

there is a threat of terrorist attack to save lives rather than protecting private information due to

security policies. The government and the Court should provide warrants in sensitive cases and

hold them accountable for the exact reason of violating user information.

Works Cited

Burum, Sue, and Georgia Holmes. "Apple v. FBI: Privacy vs. security?" National Social Science

9 (2017): 9-22.

Nicas, Jack, and Katie Benner. "FBI asks Apple to help unlock two iPhones." Nytimes. 2020.

Web https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/technology/apple-fbi-iphone-encryption.html

Showing Page:

3/3

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Josh Prof McFadden English 101 10/4/2021 Should Apple Help the FBI Unlock iPhones? Government versus Apple is a war concerning the right thing to do, whether to protect human lives from locked information from their devices or preserve privacy and security confidentiality from user-locked iPhones. Apple denies unlocking clients' devices without their consent, but the government insists on opening suspect phones to investigate terrorist activities and national security. Apple upholds the policy of protecting encrypted private information confidential. The government requires access to iPhones, creating a battle that is undeniably challenging to win. Even if Apple should comply with permitting the access of encrypted information when the suspect's phone is associated with terrorism, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should remain restricted from using customer information for other ...
Purchase document to see full attachment