Sunday, 28 February 2016

Should Apple help the FBI unlock the terrorists' iPhone?

Source background
According to the BBC News story "Apple asks court to reverse FBI iPhone order" (2016), Apple is continuing to refuse to follow the FBI's court order to help it read the information on the iPhone of the terrorist husband and wife couple who killed 14 people in San Bernadino, California last year.

The BBC News report says that the FBI argues that it needs the information to stop more terrorism, and that it has only asked Apple to help it read the information on the one phone that the terrorists encrypted. Apple's argument is that US Constitutional law makes the FBI and their court order illegal because computer code is speech and therefore protected under US free speech laws. The FBI has answered that Apple is only doing this to boost sales of iPhones and other Apple products.
_______________________________________ 

My Yes/No question is:
Should Apple help the FBI unlock the terrorists' iPhone?

My answer is:
No. Apple should continue to refuse to follow the court order to help the FBI as requested. Apple is right that the FBI has asked them to construct software that can be used on every similar Apple iPhone, not just for one phone. The FBI might say it's only for this one phone, but that is not believable. The FBI has often asked for Apple and other tech companies to help it get at private customer information in the past, and there is no reason I can think of why the FBI would not want to do the same with the tool they now want Apple to create.
___________
Reference
Apple asks court to reverse FBI iPhone order. (2016, February 25). BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35664904

2 comments:

  1. My answer is:

    No for now, but possibly Yes in the future only for some cases. Needless to say, the FBI often asks several technology companies for help in order to access suspected information. The FBI would have right to do so if the information is really helpful in terms of importation investigation, especially for ready-to-be severe terrorism. Yet, it should be restricted for some groups of people, not for all customers. The next question is that how we define the legal and moral right for such an action by the FBI and companies since it may also affect other users who are not related to terrorism. In this case, it is also pretty hard to find out the appropriate way, leading to a debate in the U.S. society and others. As long as it can threaten other customers and there no clear, acceptable method to access any private user’s information, I believe it is too risky to cause trouble, as opposed to expected benefits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Feem. If there was some way that strict judicial control could be guaranteed, I would not be so worried about doing what the FBI has asked. But I can't see how that is possible, which is precisely Apples reason for opposing the request.

      Delete

Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.

A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.