By Jada Butler In the fight against Apple and the FBI to create an encryption code to access the iPhone of one of the terrorists involved in the San Bernardino shootings, there have been many controversies and reports of misinformation in regards to the case. On Feb. 17, a California judge ordered Apple to unlock the phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters, to which Tim Cook responded in an open letter an appeal to the request, refusing to create a “backdoor” for its software. For the next several days, this disagreement between Apple and the government has attracted attention from a wide range of people: the citizens of the United States, presidential candidates, and other social media and internet leaders such as Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter Founder and CEO Jack Dorsey who side with Apple. Even Wilson students have a say: “The government has in the past solved many problems,” says Ryan Sullivan, senior, “but their request goes against the 4th amendment. I would rather die with all my rights than live with barely any.” Sullivan, along with countless others, commends Apple for protecting the rights of their users. Mr. Daubert, history and contemporary issues teacher, would like to applaud Apple for defending personal liberty. But there are some who think that Apple should comply with the FBI and stop making things so difficult; there are those who believe the FBI should be granted access to the phone. “The U.S. should be allowed,” says Nick Fabrizio, senior, “because it concerns national security and our safety. They should only be allowed if it is at the expense of our security.” And is it at the expense of our safety? What more could the FBI get from the locked phone of the deceased Syed Farook? “I’ve noticed over the years,” says Michael Bean, sophomore, “the government has been encroaching on many aspects of people’s rights. This is another step in that direction.” For Apple to create a break in their technology’s privacy defense system could be detrimental for any amount of software just as well as its user’s privacy. Box CEO Aaron Levie tells Techcrunch, “...The world is going to get more complex, so you can’t create weaknesses in software that will then become vulnerabilities in the future.” “Government security has been breached so many times,” says Sneh Patel, senior. There are hackers everywhere - consider the data theft from the Office of Personnel Management computer systems in July of 2015 that compromised sensitive personal information from roughly 21.5 million people both inside and outside the government. “With the back door policy, the FBI won’t be the only ones to go through that door,” says Patel. “There are hackers that could figure out the entrance to the back door,” he continues, “To make an encryption solely for the use of the FBI is nearly impossible.” With a multitude of stances against the order, Apple finally, on Feb. 25, filed a motion to vacate in the case. Apple stated that “the FBI is attempting to greatly expand the use of the All Writs Act, a U.S. federal statute, which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
2 Comments
Grace Yacobowsky
4/5/2016 09:40:29 am
Jada, wow what an amazing article you wrote. Very insightful and an easy read! Great Job, you should be proud!
Reply
Jada Butler
4/5/2016 09:57:58 am
Aw, thanks Grace! Glad you liked it.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Elena Caputo
Hi! My name is Elena, and I'm a senior at Wilson and one of the Editors of the Editorial section. If you have any questions or ideas or if you want to write, email me at [email protected]! Olivia MonosHello! My name is Olivia and I'm a junior this year, and one of the editors of the Editorial section! I'm really excited to write for the Paw Print again this year!
Archives
December 2019
Categories |