Overview
Millions of people all around the world are using Smartphones, like iPhones, which turns out to be crucial part of our lives. We are using them not only for calling but we also store unbelievably huge amount of personal information. We have there all our contacts, calls and messages and all our pictures that we save and keep in the phones. A t here’s also a calendar on the phone, with all the information about where we have been and where we are planning to go. All this information is private and sensitive and this has to be protected carefully from criminals and hackers.
In this case study, I aim to present the recent issue about Cyber security, protecting client’s private data and information through the controversial Apple and
…show more content…
In Apple case we can use several theories to study if Apple and FBI are behaving ethically or unethically.
Kant theory is saying that everyone must do things for the right reasons. According to Deontological ethics theory, an action is considered favourable sometimes because of some good aspect of action in itself without considering its good result from the action. This theory is much based upon the one’s morals and values which expresses the “sake of duty” and virtue. Deontology tells us to be fair and not to take advantage of others while teleology tells about doing whatever we want and it gives us a result that is good to us. [17]
Cyber security is very important and big public safety concern. Everyone are worried if there is possibility that the most confidential and private info is exposed to hackers or governmental organisations. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey found that 47 percent said Apple should not collaborate with FBI. And when they were asked if FBI needs to keep an eye on terrorist then they were almost split equally.
…show more content…
[6]
As FBI confirmed that they managed to unlock the terrorist mobile, then this makes Apple worried that the hackers would not send this specific technique to other hackers. Apple needs to work very fast that FBI would not be able to use this specific hacking method for too long time. [9]
The implications of the government’s wants are frightening. They need new regulations that would make their work easier and faster. Problem at moment is that if the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, then FBI can easily just arrest and block all your information you had in your mobile or follow your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without you even knowing about it. [12]
In this case it’s I think important to understand that Apple would happily open this one phone and give the FBI the info they needed. But this isn’t what the government really wants. The government wants a backdoor key into the operating system itself. This means that government will have total right of entry into your iPhone. This has to be regulated to protect
In doing so, they used 3 different logical structures in their arguments: precedent, degree, and analogies. Tim Cook debated with a constructive argument, “to guarantee such a powerful tool isn’t abused and don’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it” (The Guardian, 2016). This is an example of degree argument, as the audience will automatically agree with any arguments with less of bad things because it is good. Apple knows there are no other cases like this one, so there’s nothing to compare to. Letting the government into the iPhone only this one time can set a dangerous precedent that can potentially force Apple to force open every iPhone in the future at government request. This became a heated legal battle, granting the access in their products for law enforcement was compared to “a political question” by Apple with an analogy (Yadron,
Having a daily routine is a great way to keep track of obligations and engagements, but so is a cell phone. You can add events to your calendar, send alerts to yourself, take notes, and have the world at your fingertips. These days’ electronics serve
In today 's generation many adults and teenagers keep everything from contacts numbers to their social security numbers on their smartphones. When customers, including criminals and terrorists purchase their smartphones, they are buying it with the assurance that not some, but all of their information and privacy will be safeguarded. The issue occurring today deals with the suspected terrorist of the San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015 shooting involving over 30 injured people. Syed Farook, the suspected terrorist Apple IPhone is locked with a 4 code password and the government wants Apple to create a backdoor operating systems that allows them to computerize as many passcodes they can to unlocks the terrorists IPhone. Apple strongly believes that creating this necessary backdoor system will create a negative chain of effects that will affect everyone from smartphone users to social media companies and their privacy. The FBI recently has taken Apple to court to create the necessary backdoor operating systems to get around the security features created on the Apple IPhones. Apple has the legal right to refuse creating a “backdoor” software to get into suspected terrorists iphone because it invades the privacy of Apple 's customers, it will set a precedent for other companies, and the FBI will mislead Apple.
Police being able to search your phone without is warrant is a violation of privacy and the fourth amendment. This is an ongoing issue that is currently in the Supreme Court and state courts, which have split opinions on the issue. The courts are having a lot of trouble grasping what to compare a cell phone to as far as searching it. A big case that they are comparing searching cell phones to is over 40 years old and it involves a police officer searching through a cigarette box and finding drugs. A judge in the 9th circuit against warrantless search debunked the cigarette box comparison by saying phones are more like a suitcase, except the suitcase contains everything that you have ever traveled with in your entire life, then some. Though that is a better view on the situation, it is still a very narrow view on what personal data really is. Who cares if the police can search your phone? Well when they do, they will learn more about you then you ever knew about yourself. Do you really want a stranger knowing everything about your personal life, it would almost be like living in a glass house with no doors and bright lights on all night (KOPAN, 2013).
The feud between Apple Company and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California on December 2015. The FBI named the man responsible for the Massacre as Syed Rizwan Farook along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik. The police killed the couple during the shootout and found an iPhone (Apple product) used by Farook which later the FBI learned was given to him by his employer from the government. In order to trace others involved in the killings, the FBI requested Apple to help them crack the phone because they don’t want to risk deleting the possible information they need. “Cracking the phone” is a process of making a backdoor or breaking into the secured computer system with certain software which enables illegal copying of data (techopedia). I thought it was absurd to know that during the House committee hearing on March 3, 2016, Apple dismissed the FBI request to crack the mobile phone used by Farook in the San Bernardino Massacre on December
The quote,”The Fourth Amendment is not at stake here, given the appropriate judicial involvement.”, proves that the FBI obtaining information from Syed Farook's, the gunman's, iPhone is legal, because the fourth amendment allows search and seizures of property, with probable cause and a warrant. Getting information from Apple is perfectly legal.
The recent leaks, disclosures, and actions of government agencies – namely the National Security Administration (NSA) – have caught the public’s attention and focused it on the protection of privacy and civil liberties. The NSA participates in a bulk data collection program that has accumulated phone data over the past five years in order to track persons suspected of threat to the nation. This collection of mass data without issued warrants violates the Fourth Amendment and brings the potential abuses with this program into view. Not to mention possible cyber security threats: if a subcontractor was able to commandeer this information and leak it, what is stopping hackers from doing the same, or worse.
Swartz and Allen both offer valuable perspectives on expectation of privacy and legal limitation of cell phone data tracking use. As consumers of technology, Americans use cells phone not always by choice, sometimes by necessity. Both authors advise us to question our stand on the government’s unwarranted involvement in our lives. I would encourage us all to be aware of all technology around us. Albeit convenient, we must be willing to accept our part in its use.
The iPhone is an important point, in this case, it might relate to other planning that terrorists have, and other terrorists. Court orders Apple to unlock the iPhone in order to help law enforcement agents. And the phone owner also agrees to examine it. But Apple refuses to comply. Apple indicates that their operating systems only allow the user to get access to the device.
Apple created a security system that keeps out cyber criminals and hackers. It is so important that Apple states “ We have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.” So the need of encryption is so urgent that Apple can't even get the information from their own phones! Apple does their best to keep us safe and letting the government make a backdoor would ruin that leaving our privacy be able to be
Privacy threats are currently the biggest threat to National Security today. The threats are not only concerning to the government, however. An alarming 92% of Americans are concerned that the power grid may be vulnerable to a cyber-attack (Denholm). Although this is a more recent development to the cyber threats we have experienced, this is not the first time that privacy threats have stepped into the limelight as people are forced to watch their every online move.
In my opinion, ethics give people free will to make right choices. People have free will to make choices that are governed with responsibility, accountability, and liability. We have a responsibility to perform in an ethical manner and be accountable for our choices or actions. Regardless of the circumstances and choices we make, there are consequences if we make the wrong choice. The question of whether an action or choice is ethical or not is fundamentally based on whether something is right or wrong. From an ethical standpoint, unethical choices and risky behavior can lead to increased liabilities. The liabilities result in the loss or damage sustained by a company or other party as result of an unethical and sometimes illegal decision. Although we exercise free will on a continuous basis, we are governed by the decisions we make and my belief is that the decisions we make daily do not just affect us. These decisions affect other people, such as family, friends, coworkers, instructors, neighbors, etc. The most prominent example of ethics can be recognized in the field of technology based on the growing amount of rapidly changing legislation and acts that under consideration in order to protect people from unethical practices.
In the early years of computers and computerized technology, computer engineers had to believe that their contribution to the development of computer technology would produce positive impacts on the people that would use it. During the infancy of computer technology, ethical issues concerning computer technology were almost nonexistent because computers back then were not as multifaceted as they are today. However, ethical issues relating to computer technology and cyber technology is undeniable in today’s society. Computer technology plays a crucial role in all aspects of our daily lives. Different forms of computer technology provide unique functionalities that allow people to perform daily activities effectively and efficiently. In modern society, we use computer and cyber technology to communicate with friends and family via social networking sites, participate in business transactions, and get current news. Different tasks require unique technological feature in computer technology to function properly. Although, unique technological features increase people’s proficiency in accomplishing various tasks, unique technological features in computer and cyber technology increase security vulnerabilities. In many cases, the security vulnerabilities in computer technology are exploited by cybercriminals to invade people’s privacy, and steal people’s identity. We know that computers have no moral compass; they cannot make moral decisions for themselves. Essentially, people make moral decisions that affect others positively or negatively depending on how they use computer technology. Some of the biggest ethical issues facing people in the computing environment include privacy concerns on the web and identity theft. Privacy concerns...
The nation has become dependent on technology, furthermore, cyberspace. It’s encompassed in everything we deliver in our daily lives, our phones, internet, communication, purchases, entertainment, flying airplane, launching missiles, operating nuclear plants, and implicitly, our protection. The more ever-growing technology empower Americans, the more they become prey to cyber threats. The United States Executive Office of the President stated, “The President identified cybersecurity as one of the top priorities of his administration in doing so, directed a 60-day review to assess polices.” (United States Executive Office of the President, 2009, p.2). Furthermore, critical infrastructure, our network, and internet alike are identified as national assets upon which the administration will orchestrate integrated cybersecurity policies without infringing upon and protecting privacy. While protecting our infrastructure, personal privacy, and civil liberties, we have to keep in mind the private sector owns and operates the majority of our critical and digital infrastructure.
Cyber security is the most important computer technology needed in today’s society. Some people think that better computer design will be cost effective and provide protection to our bank accounts, social security numbers and driving records, but recent hacks like Equalfax which have put millions of people in jeopardy is the reason that cyber security is the most important.