APPLE VS.

FBI

1. What harms are potentially produced by the FBI’s demand that Apple help
it open an iPhone? What harms are potentially produced by Apple’s refusal to
help the FBI?

One of Apple’s strongest selling points is privacy. So, the company takes
privacy seriously not only because of its genuine concerns over public safety,
identity theft, extortion attempts, user tracking, and data trafficking but because it
benefits its business. Helping the FBI with its demands would do massive damage
to Apple’s brand, as customers wouldn’t trust the company. This also means Apple
has to contend with the possibility that at some future date, cybercriminals could
use this method and more problems would exist if abused. Additionally, Apple
would also put the security of every iPhone user and device at risk if the creation
of code happened. However, if Apple, did not refuse the demand of the FBI, it may
help to solve the San Bernardino shooting case and future terrorist attacks.

2. Do you think Apple had a moral obligation to help FBI open the iPhone in
this case because it involved terrorism and mass shooting? What if the case
involved a different type of criminal activity instead, such as drug trafficking?
Explain your reasoning.

This issue is a tug-of-war between national security and data privacy. I understand
that the FBI is trained for this kind of terrorist attack, and they are just doing what
they need to do to solve the case. However, they need to do that without taking
consumers' data privacy. I agree that apple had a moral obligation to help the FBI
but not to the extent of creating a version of iOS that would bypass a device's
passcode and allow them to access all its locally stored data. Allowing third parties
to access users' privacy is against the commitment of the company to its
consumers. Also, consumer’s rights and freedoms are best served by protecting
their privacy.
3. Apple argued that helping to open one iPhone would produce code that
could be used to make private information on all iPhones vulnerable, not only
to the American government but also to other foreign governments and
criminal elements. Do you agree with Apple’s “slippery slope” argument?
Does avoiding these harms provide adequate justification for Apple’s refusal
to open the phone, even if it could reveal crucial information on the terrorist
shooting?

According to Apple, they used end-to-end encryption which prevents anyone

from accessing the content except for the sender and recipient. So, it is impossible
to unlock just one device, and creating a master key with the potential to unlock
every iOS device in the world would create a privacy and security vulnerability
that puts every user at risk.

The decision has to be made on the basis of the greater good (lesser of evils).
I agree with the refusal of Apple and believe that their reasons are ample enough.
Yes, it could be a tool to reveal crucial information; it could also lead to more
serious problems and issues such as identity theft, drug trafficking, terrorist
attacks, and cybercrimes.

4. Politicians from across the political spectrum, including President Obama

and Senator Ted Cruz, argued that technology preventing government access
to information should not exist. Do you agree with this limit on personal
privacy? Why or why not?
I agree in Mark Cuban's (the Dallas Mavericks Owner) suggestions in his
site BLOG MAVERICK. Instead of not allowing companies to operate, lawmakers
should reform and create a law that fits this kind of situation. A law that will truly
limit the circumstances where companies like Apple can be compelled to help a
government agency crack a device.

5. Ultimately, the FBI gained access to the iPhone in question without the help
of Apple. Does this development change your assessment of the ethical
dimensions of Apple’s refusal to help the FBI? Should the FBI share
information on how it opened the iPhone with Apple so that it can patch the
vulnerability? Explain your reasoning.
The FBI unlocked the iPhone device without the help of Apple company.
Maybe, the FBI doesn't need to reveal how it opened the iPhone because of
confidentiality and ethics towards their work. However, Apple should take this as a
serious challenge. How they will make their private code strong that no one can
override.