Terrorism is haunting our modern world today. Recently America witnessed the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11. The shooter had the possession of an Apple iphone, and the FBI wants the four digit code. Apple believes that if they were to create a software to crack the code of this phone. It may expose the privacy and security of all Apple customers. The FBI deserves to have this phone because, it is an order of federal court. Additionally, this could possibly lead to ISIS and when they may strike again. FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee and discussed the frustration of not being able to access the locked phone. He explains "It affects our counterterrorism work. San Bernardino, a very important investigation …show more content…
The Apple company is making the right decision for their company, and for the privacy of the customers. However, cracking the code could help to further investigate the San Bernardino case. Potentially leading to future terrorist attacks. Tim Cook, CEO of Apple wrote a letter to all Apple customers:
We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal. Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession. (Cook)
To make a decision on this controversial topic, we must consider both a FBI and Apple perspective. Apple has come to a conclusion to turn the cold shoulder to the Federal Court. They would have to create a software that would create a backdoor to the iphone. Imagine if this device was placed into the wrong hands. The FBI needs the four digit code because it may potentially save hundred of American lives in the
Kane, Y. I. and K. Scannell (2009). Apple bests downturn, but faces SEC probe. Accessed on February 15, 2009 at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123255729957302873.html.
Should Apple be forced to unlock an iPhone or not? It becomes a controversial topic during these years. Most people 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 whether or not Apple should be forced to hack or not because it could bring people to a dangerous situation and forget the purpose of keeping people’s privacy.
Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) first introduced the Mobile Device Theft Deterrence Act of 2012 (S. 3186). This was the first attempt to address phone crimes on a national scale. Due to the previous failure in 2012, the Mobile Device Theft Deterrence Act was re-introduced by Senator Schumer in 2013. It targeted to criminalize tampering with mobile device identification number as a means to halt the black market for stolen cell phones. There is a unique International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number in every smartphone. This number enables local carriers to block operating device’s network and puts it on blacklist. This bill also sought to impose a 5-year criminal penalty for the alternation of IMEI number. Other than these, there were joint efforts between cell carriers and FCC to create Stolen Cell Phone Registry by November 30, 2012 . This registry would store a list of stolen phones’ International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number. However, this database only worked if thieves didn’t tamper cell phone ID number. In fact, there are many loopholes for thieves to get around with such registry. When cellphones are reported stolen, most phone carriers in United States only deactivate the SIM card by prohibiting access to information stored in the SIM card. This blocks the device from using the existing data on the phone. Yet, SIM card can be easily removed and replaced. Stolen cell phones can be sold in black market even if it is blocked. Therefore, there are a lot more to be done to protect public safety and smartphone crimes.
In this micro-study, I will use tools and information available to the public via internet in attempt to hack the iPhone. Currently the iPhone is only sold to subscribers of the AT&T telecommunication service provider and all applications and updates are installed using Apple’s iTunes software. Using various resources I will focus the two main issues which have put Apple and the iPhone user community into the limelight. First, the “unlocking” of the iPhone, which bypasses the iTunes activations process and allows the device to be used on any SIM (Subscriber Information Module) card cellular phone service provider other than AT&T, in this micro-study I will be using a T-Mobile SIM card. Second, I will attempt to “jailbreak” the device, which will allow me to install third-party applications through underground sources and not directly from Apple. As I attempt to hack the iPhone, I will compare drawbacks and benefits of hacking methods, ease of use, and verify Apple’s claims on affecting functionality and possible damag...
As the Rise of cyber crimes grew so did the FBI’s influence on the growing technology.
The United States has endured numerous security breaches and high security threats over the past two decades. After the attacks on 9/11, the office of Intelligence became a vital source in retrieving sensitive data and tracking down potential terrorists and their networks which could pose a threat to the American people and then forwarding that vital information to the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies. Intelligence became a key role in “assessing threats to critical American infrastructures, bio-and nuclear terrorism, pandemic diseases, threats to the borders to the nation, and radicalization within American society” (Randol, 2009, p. 7). The sharing of homeland security intelligence has become a precedence for Congress and the government. Our nation must be one step ahead of any potential terrorists that want to harm our turf. Within this text the capabilities and limitations of both domestic and foreign intelligence in supporting homeland security efforts will be explained;
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.
Most studies have shown that popular opinion holds that without a doubt national DNA databases have proved useful in criminal investigations (Wallace, 2006, pS27). The concept of a national DNA database has raised concern about privacy and human rights as seen through the scope of public safety. All of these concerns are elevated with databases include convicted, arrestee, innocent, and “rehabilitated” offenders (Suter, 2010, p339). Robin Williams of University of Duham (2006) asserts that:
The emergence of new and innovative technology can be used in many deceitful or secretive ways by law enforcement agencies to convict a suspect. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights has had a large influence in regulating the ways that law enforcement agencies may use technology against the everyday citizen. Technology can be used to obtain information on an individual without the individual being aware of the invasion of their privacy: e-mail accounts can be hacked, IP addresses can be traced, phones can be tapped and tracked, cars can be bugged.
Technology is robbing people of personal privacy. Today’s generation view technology as a basic necessity. It is found everywhere. There are even homes that are completely automated. However it is safe to say were being robbed of our personal privacy. For instance many people carry their cellular phone to the washroom. Another example of the intrusive nature of the cell phone is at funerals. Many have been at such a private and personal moment only to be interrupted by the irreverent ringtone from a cellular phone. Not to mention that there are families who no longer enjoy face to face communication with their loved ones. All emotions are now translated by emoticons, a computer application.
The United States is in a tricky situation. First and foremost, we are a country that prides itself on being free. Even the fourth amendment to our Constitution declares, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Yet we are also a country that demands security. Americans expect that our government will keep us safe. These two ideals, freedom and security, are often at odds. How can we expect our government to stop terrorism without infringing on our rights? Recent disclosures, that the government has access to American phone calls and emails, have brought this debate to the forefront of public discourse.
Swartz and Allen both agree the government’s use of cell pone surveillance is questionable, however they disagree on where the line should be drawn. For example, Swartz’s view is objective when prosecutors make the argument that having access to such crucial data is imp...
Lashinsky, A. (2012). Inside Apple: how America's most admired-and secretive-company really works. New York: Business Plus.
On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by a group of Islamic terrorists who hijacked four airplanes and carried out three simultaneous suicide attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. As a result of the multiple crimes, the United States’ government increased national security and prioritized our nation 's’ defense, often at the expense of the people’s privacy, by enacting policies like the Patriot Act (What is the USA Patriot Web 2011). This left personal emails, text messages, internet history, and personal belongings exposed to the government. Although the government reduced the public’s rights to privacy, it is a necessary step to ensure national safety and security.
Over the past few years, technology has grown to be the driving force in human productivity and efficiency. Technology has been incorporated into our everyday lives to help us perform daily activities and bridge long distance communication. Although technology has brought us many advantages, it has also created quite few ethical issues along the way. Some of the biggest ethical issues technology has created revolve around cell phones. These issues include cell phone tracking and using the cell phone to cheat. Cell phone privacy can be compromised in many situations regarding phone call tracking and messaging. Cell phone use is also starting to be abused by students and other test takers to cheat on tests. Even if the person has good moral standards, sometimes the right decision to make is not always clear.