Develeoping Learning Power End of the Year Essay

The Apple versus FBI Debate

In the recent past, a great number of contentious issues have been discussed at length in the United States. One issue that has certainly been talked about by vast sections of the population relates to the widely publicized Apple versus FBI debate (Ohm 1309). Condense the story caused by an attack on the 2nd of December, 2015 when two shooters went on an indiscriminate shooting spree that resulted in the death of fourteen people in San Bernardino, California. A few hours following the commencement of the deadly shooting, law enforcement officers managed to kill the assailants (Orso, 183). Law enforcement, as well as the wider public were sought information to explain the crime was planned, the manner in which, and the reason why the attack took place (Freiwald, 681). The existing evidence offered an indication that the perpetrators were potentially linked with Islamic extremism. Even though the FBI managed to uncover a vast quantity of information with respect to the attack, the agency still insisted that it was in need of additional information from the attacker’s iPhones.

As a result, the FBI sought to force Apple into creating a software that had the potential to the break into the iPhone by circumventing security features (Orso, 183). To that end, the FBI requested that the judicial system issue a writ to order Apple is compliance; however, Apple refused citing privacy guaranteed by the 4th amendment. Apple should not create the software because interested are protected, demands were unconstitutional and, despiting overwhelming evidence.

Various reasons can be offered to back the stance that was taken by Apple. To begin with, the company not only stood up for itself, but also for the rest of the population. The FBI ultimately decided to drop its court case against the company after it found another way through which the iPhone could be unlocked. Nevertheless, this development does not make the position taken by Apple any less significant (Freiwald, 681). The FBI opted to pull back owing to the fact that it was able to get its hands on information carried in the phone without the help of the tech company. Regardless, the issues brought up by the debate between Apple and the FBI are yet to be resolved. Certainly, such issues are bound to crop up in the future. It is for this reason that it is important to gain an enhanced comprehension of why the company took the stance that it chose. The fundamental rights of US citizens were at stake and the principal task of the law is, in theory, providing protection for individual’s rights.

When one takes into consideration what the FBI was asking the company to do, it is clear that Apple stood up for the rights of Americans as a whole. The FBI never asked the company to provide information that it was already in possession of since the tech firm did not have the information that agency was looking for (Orso, 183). The FBI’s demand were far from a search warrant. Rather, the agency sought to have the company come up with new software to unlock said phone. Unfortunately, had Apple yielded to the agency’s requests, the fundamental rights of American people would have been breached, and there is no telling what else such software would have been used for later. In a few words, the risks of developing such software were too great and would have had broad-ranging negative ramifications on the privacy of all American citizens.

Further, the demands made by the FBI were unconstitutional. The American government does not have any right to compel anybody into providing it with services if they do not wish to. When the broader implications of the agency’s arguments are taken into consideration, the unconstitutionality of its assertions become more apparent. The agency’s officials affirmed that the American government holds the right to compel organizations into helping it attain individuals’ personal information (Ohm, 1309). However, Apple never had any way through which it could have accessed the information carried in the phone of one of the perpetrators of the San Bernardino attack. To do this, Apple would have had to come up with new software (Freiwald, 681). The company’s phones are equipped with certain features that aid in the protection of individuals’ information. Further, the Fourth Amendment of the nation’s Constitution guarantees citizens this right to privacy. Concisely, people have the right to be in possession of information without the need to have it shared with the government. Additionally, Apple equally possesses the right to offer products that have the potential to aid people in protecting this right.

On the other hand, despite the overwhelming evidence that backs the position taken by Apple, a number of individuals hold the belief that the company should have acted to the contrary. One perspective that has been offered to support such views is that an innumerable sum of extremists could be hard at work plotting attacks (Ohm 1309). Many terrorist incidents have been reported in other regions of the world since the San Bernardino attack unfolded in the nation. Unfortunately, intelligence reports indicate that more attacks are bound to take place, with terrorist groups, in particular ISIS, hell-bent on wreaking havoc in western nations (Orso, 183). As a result, a number of people affirm that every possible measure should be taken to deter the possibility of such attacks materializing. To such people, companies like of Apple should provide any assistance they can, even if it means contravening the fundamental rights of citizens (Ohm, 1309). Even though the gravity of terrorist threats is something that cannot be disputed after witnessing the carnage caused by such deplorable activities time and again, the government should use the appropriate channels for it to be provided with the help it requires in the fight against terrorism.

In the course of the First World War and the Second World War, Congress afforded the President the authority to compel corporations into lending their support toward the war effort. However, such authority ended following the conclusion of the wars. Interestingly, the FBI sought to assert similar authority over the tech company albeit in normal times. If the FBI really wanted the assistance of Apple, it should have followed the right steps by first seeking the approval of Congress. In this way, its requests could have been deemed legitimate. Concisely, Apple’s refusal is not evidence that the company is not concerned with the terrorist threats that the nation faces. However, the company should only offer its assistance according to the law.

Works Cited

Freiwald, Susan. "Cell phone location data and the fourth amendment: A question of law, not fact." Md. L. Rev. 70 (2010): 681.

Ohm, Paul. "The fourth amendment in a world without privacy." Miss. LJ 81 (2011): 1309.

Orso, Matthew E. "Cellular Phones, Warrantless Searches, and the New Frontier of Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence." Santa Clara L. Rev. 50 (2010): 183.