Should Apple be Forced to Unlock an iPhone?
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.
Issa utilizes statistics to suggest ideas. He says, “The Office of Personnel Management’s security breach resulted in the theft of 22 million Americans’ information, including fingerprints, Social Security numbers, addresses, employment history, and financial records” (Issa). Issa also adds that, “The Internal Revenue Service’s hack left as many as 334,000 taxpayers accounts compromised‑though just this week, the IRS revised that number to o...
... middle of paper ...
...till need to care more about the people’s privacy. I also agree with Apple’s CEO’s position that is why I strongly agree with this article.
Darrell Issa persuades governors that Apple needs to keep their customer information to themselves. Through using the rhetorical devices of statistics and historical evidence, he addresses the fact that Apple should not be forced to unlock these phones. This could not only keep privacy, but also create a safe environment for people. He points out the privacy act passing before in order to persuade the governors to need to think what they did and what they need to do in the future. They should not force Apple to unlock an iPhone because it provides a backdoor for the lawbreakers.
Worked cited
"Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent." Wired.com. Ed. Issa Darrell. Conde Nast Digital, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
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,
Works Cited for: Caplan, Hayley. How to Avoid Cell Phone Identity Theft? What Is Privacy? N.p., 31 July 2012. Web.
Barker, Cyril Josh. "NSA phone scandal." New York Amsterdam News 18 May 2006: 4. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 16 Dec. 2013.
...d. The creation of the new operating system will also create a dangerous precedent for future companies that will affect everyone negatively. The risk that will arise from this conflict could possibly allow the FBI and hackers to all Apple customers privacy. Though making the backdoor system would help the FBI obtain all necessary information regarding the San Bernardino Terrorists, this create a domino effect that will ultimately affect all people. The FBI claims that they will only use the operating system once if they receive it but prior evident proves that it will not be true. Apple has the legal right to refuse creating a new IOS software to get suspected terrorists IPhone because it will invade all privacy of all Apple customers, it will set a precedent for future companies, and the FBI will mislead Apple into believing they will not use the IOS system again.
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...
Individuals must realize that freedom is something you must take for yourself. Although there may never be a perfect balance between privacy and technology, there are many ways to inform people about the possible dangers of these high-tech gadgets. If we can all work together to promote our rights, there may be laws implemented that support privacy concerns. After all, the people are the government.
“Hooray! Republicans renounce unconstitutional invasion of privacy”. Clark Fork Valley Press. (12 Mar. 2014). Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
...ld be allowed to have this sensitive information. Also, both author's share similar views that people need to be better aware of their sensitive data, so they can blame the government or corporations when it's someone else's fault to their own. The people are the one's effected on the advances of technology on their private information which someone has to change the system which could be the businesses that get that material from customers, the government would should being doing their best to protect that material, or even the people who are the ones who get hurt from this material getting exposed. Only then the privacy of people can truly be protected.
Lynn said that “ over the past few years, all manner of data has been stolen, some of it mundane, some of it concerning our most sensitive systems, including aircraft avionics, surveillance technologies, satellite communications, and network security protocols.” He also acknowledged that the Defense Department lost 24,000 files in cyber attacks by foreign intruders in March 2011.... ... middle of paper ... ...
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.
In the wake of the many attacks within our country in the past month alone, the idea of freely letting the government seize information in the interest of preventing these attacks and save countless lives becomes significantly more appealing. It means that now, we as citizens are directly involved in the security of our own nation. We then become part of that “greater good”. We can make a big difference in the lives of our fellow Americans just from the very simple act of surrendering something as seemingly small and insignificant as privacy.
It is the government’s liability to keep this country safe and secure. Based on current events, the murder of Stephen Lawrence, Apple refusing to break their policy of privacy for the FBI, and the many terrorist attacks, The House of Representatives and the Senate voted for the extension to national security agency’s warrantless surveillance program; that will last for six years. Under this policy the government will be allowed, without the need of a warrant, to collect personal information of citizens through interfering in phone calls and reviewing emails from companies such as AT&T and Google. This is to say that Americans will be losing their privacy to the government in order to be kept safe and secure. This policy, however, causes conflict
The impact on national security is physical as well as economic. The economic factor affects every person in the country. Transnational Organized Crimes (TOCs) occur even over the internet, including stealing a person’s identification; it cause more than, “1.5 million people a year suffer the theft of their identity for an economic loss estimated at US$1billion”. (Kemp, 2016) The amount of money lost due to some of TOCs, or are even just one case of organized crime in the United States, is
Harcourt argues that security is not like a Panopticon, as society is not a punitive society, but rather a society that has chosen to participate and to willingly expose ourselves to those surveilling us. Harcourt establishes that through our phones, email, social media, and other mundane actions, we expose ourselves and our inner thoughts to any who want to see. As an example, Harcourt discusses Google, where users willingly contribute data to Google even though Google is using this information for targeted advertisements (Harcourt 103). More broadly, Harcourt equates security to an amusement park, where large amounts of people are drawn in by multiple spectacles. In this amusement park, everyone is enjoying themselves, but are constantly being monitored, perhaps to the consumers’ reassurance (Harcourt 93-94).
Since the Apple iPhone released for the first time in 2007, hackers have aimed to break the limits of the device's technological capabilities. This process that is used to modify the operating system of the iPhone, and enabling the users of the iPhone to take the advantages of the technology that is not authorized by Apple is commonly known as "jailbreaking". Though jailbreaks were released by small groups of hackers, each release had a widespread use by iPhone holders. Apple has appealed to outlaw jailbreaking, and claims that it's violating Apple’s copyrights to the iPhone operating system (iOS) under § 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Supporters of jailbreaking, specifically the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), claim that the use of jailbreaking is fair use of Apple's iOS, and also set forth several policy reasons supporting jailbreaking. In 2012, the Librarian of Congress ruled that jailbreaking was exempted from § 1201 protection, allowing jailbreaking to be legal for the next three years.