Nicole Pomerleau

COMM 2470: The Sin of Spin

Arien Rozelle
26 October 2022

1. University, S. C. (2016, January 1). Apple vs. FBI case study. Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/apple-vs-fbi-case-stud
y/
a. Education Institute, Case study
b. Summary: After a terrorist attack in San Bernardino (2015), Apple was
asked to provide assistance getting into the terrorists phone. Apple did
provide the FBI with data, but did not comply with the court order to
bypass the passcode and get in the phone. The FBI argued with Apple,
saying that the bypass would only be used for this phone, but CEO Tim
Cook refused and wanted to keep personal information safe. Cook was
concerned that the FBI was overstepping and abusing the courts power. A
day before the hearing, the FBI withdrew the request, saying they no
longer needed Apple’s help.

2. Pagliery, J. (2016, April 1). Cellebrite is the FBI's go-to phone hacker. CNNMoney.
Retrieved November 7, 2022, from
https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/31/technology/cellebrite-fbi-phone/index.html
a. News Coverage
b. Summary: An Israeli company, Cellebrite, is most likely the company that
helped the FBI unlock the terrorists phone. Every employee at the
company has been forced to sign NDAs to remain silent about the matter;
however, government records show that Cellebrite landed their biggest
contract ever with the FBI ($218,000) the same day FBI said they no
longer needed Apple’s help. Law enforcement officials told CNN that the
“outside party” that helped the FBI was not Cellebrite; Cellebrite declined
to comment.

3. Business Conduct. Apple Inc. (2022, August). Retrieved November 7, 2022, from
https://www.apple.com/compliance/pdfs/Business-Conduct-Policy.pdf
a. External Communication
b. Summary: Confidentiality is one of the four main principles that guides
Apple’s business practices. Apple claims to protect confidential information
and the “information of our customers, partners, suppliers, and
 employees.” Regarding customer and third-party information, Apple says
that stakeholders may disclose confidential information over the course of
business, and it is up to Apple to protect and maintain confidentiality of the
information entrusted to them.Compromising the trust could damage
relationships with partners, customers, etc. as well as result in legal
liability.

4. Guensburg, C. (2016, February 25). Apple Vs. FBI Pits Personal Against National
Security. Global Security. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from
https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2016/intell-160225-voa01.htm
a. Online Outlet
b. Summary: By refusing to help the FBI, Apple became known as a
guardian of privacy. Apple’s CEO Time Cook said that this was about the
future, and Apple’s decision would impact that. Cook was worried that
compliance with the FBI would endanger consumer trust and ultimately
harm civil liberties. Apple was willing to fight the FBI in the highest court to
protect consumer privacy.

5. Cook, T. (2016, February 16). Customer letter. Apple Inc. Retrieved November 7, 2022,
from https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
a. External Communitcan
b. Summary: Apple sees the need for encryption as an essential part of our
lives; it is Apple’s job to protect personal information. Apple responded to
the FBI by handing over all the information that they had regarding the
San Bernardino case. The FBI was asking Apple to provide a software
that would have the potential unlock any iPhone; Apple did not want to
give the government such control.

6. Riley vs. California. Privacy Law Library. (2014). Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/riley-vs-california
a. Case Study
b. Summary: This case discusses whether a warrantless search of cell
phones violates the Fourth Amendment. The petitioner, Riley, was pulled
over for traffic violations. He was arrested for possession of firearms and
his phone was seized and searched; incriminating evidence was found on
Riley’s phone. Riley argued that this was a violation of his Fourth
Amendment because there was no search warrant. The Court provided a
unanimous decision that a warrantless search of cell phones was not
reasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.
7. PRSA code of Ethics. PRSA. (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
https://www.prsa.org/about/ethics/prsa-code-of-ethics
a. Public Relations Website
b. Summary: The PRSA Code of Ethics is designed to help guide your
ethical decisions.The PRSA also has sections on the Provisions of
Conduct. The free flow of information intends to maintain relationships
with the media, government and the public through the flow of essential,
accurate and truthful information. Disclosure of information intends to build
trust with the public by revealing all the information needed for responsible
decision making. Safeguarding confidences requires the protection of
confidential and private information to help protect privacy rights.

8. Magazine, S. (2016, February 24). What the all writs act of 1789 has to do with the
iPhone. Smithsonian.com. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-all-writs-act-1789-has-do-iphone-18
0958188/
a. News Coverage
b. Summary: When ordering Apple to unlock the iPhone, the government
chose to invoke the All Writs Act of 1789. Leading up to this: Apple has
refused to comply with breaking the encryption on the phone; the FBI has
received a warrant for the information on the phone; in order to make
Apple create a backdoor into the phone, the FBI has invoked the All Writs
Act of 1789. At the core of the All Writs Act, power is given to federal
judges in order to issue orders to compel people to do things as long as it
it within the limits of the law. Over the years, courts have had a tendency
to only use writs in extraordinary circumstances where no other law
applies to the situation. Laws are so broad when it comes to the constantly
evolving technology; it is often left to interpretation.

9. FBI. (2016, February 21). FBI director comments on San Bernardino matter. FBI.
Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/fbi-director-comments-on-san-b
ernardino-matter
a. External Communication
b. Summary: The FBI Director James Comey originally released this press
release to Lawfare Blog. Comey claims that what they are asking of Apple
is obsolete since technology is constantly changing. The FBI wants the
chance to guess the password correctly without the phone locking them
 out, they do not want to break any encriptions. The disagreement with
Apple is hardly mentioned; the FBI shifts the focus to American people
and they must do their part with the embrace of technology and safety.

10. Attorneys for Apple Inc. (n.d.). Apple Inc.’s Reply to Government’s Opposition to Apple
Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search . Just
Security. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FBI-Apple-CDCal-Apple-Reply.
pdf
a. Legal Document
b. Summary: The Government cannot invoke the All Writs Act under CALEA.
There are three limitations to CALEA, and the government ignores two of
them. First, law enforcement agencies are prohibited from ‘electronic
communication service’ providers to adopt ‘any specific design of
equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations.’ At its
basis, Apple is identified as an electronic communication service provider.
Secondly, the government does not dispute or discuss that CALEA
excludes ‘information services’ providers from mandatory assistance
provisions. Apple is an information services provider because of iOS
features. Lastly, CALEA makes it clear that telecommunications carriers
cannot be required to ‘ensure the government’s ability’ to decrypt or to
create decryption programs that the company does not possess.

11. Washkuch, F. (2016, February 31). Round Two: Apple's Tim Cook rallies troops with
employee memo; FBI urges dialogue. PR Week. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
https://www.prweek.com/article/1384465/round-two-apples-tim-cook-rallies-troops-emplo
yee-memo-fbi-urges-dialogue
a. Trade Publication
b. Summary: CEO Tim Cook had told Appl employees that data security of
millions of people was at stake with the FBI. Apple refused the FBI’s
request to create a backdoor into the iPhone based on the argument that
doing so would open up the data of customers to cybercriminals and the
government. In a letter to customers, Apple addressed why the company
is refusing to unlock the device. There was a poll conducted that showed
public support was split between Apple and the FBI. After the FBI spoke
about the matter in their letter to the public, a Twitter survey found that the
majority of retweeted comments supported Apple.

12. Paczkowski, J. (2016, February 22). Tim Cook asks FBI to withdraw order to hack
terrorist's iPhone. BuzzFeed News. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/apple-ceo-calls-on-feds-to-drop-i
phone-unlock-order#.mbLzWOAd5
a. Internal Communication (The end where the memo is shown, I could not
find it anywhere else)
b. Summary: Cook revealed to the Apple team that a week after the letter to
the customers, Apple had received a large amount of support across
America. Apple has no tolerance for terrorists, and the company will work
to help authorities, which is what they had done in the case of San
Bernardino. Customers all over the country were showing their support for
Apple; one customer thanked Cook for standing up and protecting future
generations. People place their trust in Apple and expect that their data is
protected.

13. Benner, K., & Lichtblau, E. (2016, March 28). U.S. says it has unlocked iPhone without
Apple. The New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/technology/apple-iphone-fbi-justice-department-cas
e.html?searchResultPosition=1
a. News Coverage
b. Summary: The Justice Department withdrew legal efforts after finding a
way to unlock the phone without Apple’s help. The debate between Apple
and the FBI raised a debate about whether privacy or security was more
important. Since the FBI was able to access the phone without Apple,
people began wondering if Apple devices were actually secure. The
Justice Department did not reveal how they were able to gain access to
the phone.

14. McGregor, J., & Tan, S. (2106, February 24). How they line up on Apple vs. the FBI. The
Washington Post. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/fbi-apple/
a. News Coverage
b. Summary: The majority of people/companies that sided with apple were
the CEO’s of major tech corporations such as Google and Facebook. One
Apple supporter had tweeted that the FBI was focing us into a society
where we relied on Apple for protection. Other supporters applauded
Apple for not complying with the court. People’s freedom and liberty was
at stake; Apple’s main goal was to protect user data. Some of those
supporting the FBI threatened to only use Samsung products, while others
claimed there was no need for interpretation of the law.
15. Privacy. Apple. (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2022, from https://www.apple.com/privacy/
a. External Communication
b. Summary: Apple prides themselves on their privacy. They say that privacy
is a basic human right and one of their core values. Because of this, they
design their products to protect it. There are a number of different features
that Apple offers to protect privacy (passwords, hidden albums, etc.).
Apple also offers customers insights on how Apple and various apps use
the data obtained.

###