Computer Sciences and Information Technology
Ethics and cybersecurity
Learn about the “Apple vs. FBI” issue from earlier by reading the articles at the links below. Once done answer the following questions:
1. What was the “bigger” issue here?
2. Who was for Apple complying, and, who was against? What were each side’s reasoning?
3. What is the “all writs” act that the FBI used to attempt to get Apple to comply? Was it relevant in this case?
4. Even though the case itself is off the tables…..is this issue resolved? Support your answer
Your final document will be between 3-4 pages.
Timeline of events: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/03/technology/apple-iphone-fbi-fight-explained.html?_r=0 (Links to an external site.)
Information on law used to compel Apple to comply: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/what-is-all-writs-act/ (Links to an external site.)
Apple Letter to Customers:http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ (Links to an external site.)
(Links to an external site.)Legal motions filed by Apple and the FBI in the case: https://www.eff.org/cases/apple-challenges-fbi-all-writs-act-order
Ethics and Cybersecurity
Since the evolution of the internet, cybersecurity issues have increased, especially hackers, who have developed new tactics and ways of acquiring and exploiting services and products from organizations. Ethics and cybersecurity is a broad topic where both concepts are linked together during application of various methods in reducing cyber-crimes or hackers from accessing sensitive information. The paper is a review of “Apple Vs.FBI” issues of ethics and cybersecurity.
Apple Vs. FBI is among the most viewed and debated technological stories by the public. The battle was between people and companies’ privacy versus the national security of the United States. Getting into details. The argument started with the FBI wanting to unlock a terrorist phone in San Bernardino terrorist attack (Pell, 2015). The iPhone with running iOS 9 had inbuilt encryption, which made it hard for the FBI to unlock. According to how the phone was made, an encryption key was created after the lock screen password used to encrypt and decrypt data.
The more significant issue was the FBI demand for new software, which would paralyze the feature that deletes data after the ninth failed attempt ( Schulze, 2017). Nevertheless, Apple had other alternatives for maintaining privacy, even after updating the password. After providing a new password, the phone demands a six-digit code as well as an option for a six-digit alphabet and numerical password with upper case and lower case, which is complicated, exhausting, and time-consuming.
After a long struggle to unlock the phone, Apple testified on the need and inability of the FBI to access the companies’ security measures. The FBI in the same month of February, however, compelled for Apple’s technical assistance conducted by James Carney, an FBI director claiming that encryption during an investigation is a warrant proof gesture. The chief executive officer of Apple declined by providing several reasons (Pell, 2015). One, hacking or using a backdoor to access details on the phone would interfere with other customers and apple user’s privacy, which includes millions of people. Secondly, the process would interfere with the developer’s ideas of creating a safe environment for users. Most companies supported Tim Cook’s approach, including Facebook and Google, although some individuals supported the FBI and expected Apple to cooperate.
Apple continued to fight the order and court had to depend on law created years back known as the “Writ” act. The “all writ act” is a legal order enacted by the United States congress in 1789 with a set of regulations or somewhat qualifications. Before the court uses the judicial order to compel Apple, various requirements had to be met. First and foremost, the all writs act is no written rule or law to deal with the issue if Apple is connected to the investigation, In extra-ordinary circumstances, and lastly, the law only applies in cases where compliance is not an unreasonable issue. The first to third qualification was met where apple is part of the investigation, there are no compelling statute companies to create new software for their products, and the case is considered extra-ordinary. The fourth qualification brought about arguments where, according to Apple, the fact is deemed to be unique; therefore, the all writs act was not valid.
FBI efforts on the use of all writs act did not resolve the issue. Even though the case is off the table, unlocking the phone through the all writs act could have been a significant threat to data security. The idea of using the backdoor system or updating software could have been used in the future even after the government promised to use the technique once. The government’s ability to hack and access information would interfere with apples’ efforts to maintain public safety and privacy, especially in sectors such as health and financial sectors. The issue is, however, not solved because even after Apple’s argument, the FBI succeeded in accessing Farook’s phone without assistance from Apple, which revived the battle between data encryption and public safety.
The law enforcement agencies may benefit from weakening encryption, but the process has more complex implications for the nation. Weakening encryption should not be the only option, and the United States should adopt other methods to mitigate terrorism because weakening encryption will no longer bring terrorism to an end but will endanger millions of people through data insecurity (Pell, 2015). The FBI demand for weakening the encryption only served the purpose but threatened millions of people. The winner of this argument is not yet known because the war on safety and encryption is ongoing where Apple and other companies are urged to build unbreakable encryptions and develop other reliable means of data protection.
To sum up, there are no specific mandatory policies for cybersecurity ethics, but security professional and organization’s efforts to maintain the value of information is critical. Organizations should embrace ethics in cybersecurity and take action in case of cyber threats. Apple’s efforts in maintaining high ethical standards in cybersecurity were recommendable, although the increase in technological innovations has created other technical ways of compromising and hacking information. Organizations such as the law enforcement department weaken encryption to acquire criminal evidence according to Apple Vs. FBI case. Weakening encryption could save citizens from terror attacks but again, would lead to more severe security issues.
Referencs
Apple battles the FBI over access to secured iPhone data. Computer Fraud & Security. 2016;2016(3):1-3. doi:10.1016/s1361-3723(16)30020-3
Morrison S. Breaking iPhones Under CALEA and the All Writs Act: Why the Government Was (Mostly) Right. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2016. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2808773
Pell, S. K. (2015). You Can’t Always Get What You Want: How Will Law Enforcement Get What It Needs in a Post-CALEA, Cybsecurity-Centric Encryption Era. NCJL & Tech., 17, 599.
Schulze, M. (2017). Clipper meets Apple vs. FBI: a comparison of the cryptography discourses from 1993 and 2016. Media and Communication, 5(1), 54-62.
