Technology today advances at a blink of an eye, but what rises correspondingly, along with the advancement, is a demand for the protection of privacy in regard of those technology. Smartphones, which are mostly accessible devices to a vast range of ages, are the easiest example. Each year there is at least a new version of consequently releasing smartphone such as Apple’s iphone and Samsung’s Galax. The new phones are upgraded in different areas, and one of those upgraded softwares include the enhancement of security. Recently, Apple has announced that from their iPhone 6, which was released in late 2014, the security has changed to a whole other level, invented by outside technologists. And they said for now there is no such program that can hack into those iPhones. Fans were excited to meet the greatest security on their hand, but the dilemma came into place when FBI obtained the iPhone 5C of Syed Farook, the perpetrator of San Bernardino shooting of 2015.
On February 16th, the federal court ordered Apple to unlock an iphone 5c owned by Syed Farook, who killed 14 people and injured more than 20 in a shooting. Apple had been, until FBI eventually invented the program to hack into the phone with hired technologist themselves, refused to follow the order. FBI wanted to search the phone to see whether Syed Farook (and his wife) and their terror were related with the Islamic State. But the phone is locked with 4 digit password, and because of the way that iphone security system is set up, more than 10 false attempts to unlock the phone can delete all the information contained in the phone, which was the last scenario that FBI wanted to account. FBI asked Apple to create a system that can hack the iphone, but Apple has been insisting that they will not -or cannot create such system.
People may ask, it’s just one phone. Why can’t Apple just do it? We all know that Apple CAN do if they wanted to with their genius technologists. But once they do invent such program, it is not just that one iPhone 5C that will be hacked, but all the iPhones, at least before the 6. And there are worries bawling out for that possibility.
If Apple has accepted the order of FBI and had removed the 10 time limit of password try, or created a program that can hack the password, the security is no longer impregnable and the hacking software exists somewhere in the world. And it is most likely that FBI would ask Apple to break into more phones after another. If Apple had created the program and officially supported the government to break into the iphone, from then Apple will be asked by not just American government, but also from other government to do the same thing for their ‘justable reason.’ Today, technology advancing faster than human, and it will only take, once again, a blank of an eye for that software to leak or gets into the hands of professional hackers. We all know how that story would end.
According to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, US citizens have “right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions.” However, it is also written that,”upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The fact that the owner of the phone has killed 14 people, and that he has possible connection with more terrors seem to justify the search of his phone. I believe that it was not the problem of whether the search was justified or not, but the problem of ‘what is the aftermath of the search and the creation of hacking program?’
Once technology is invented it cannot be lost. Now that FBI has successfully unlocked the iPhone 5c of the Farook, it is questionable whether they can also break the iphoe 6 and 6s, and further new versions of iPhones. Development in technology indeed bring convenience and ease to life, but it is important that we are aware of what is coming with the advancement, and how that balances out the benefit.
Issac, Mike. “Explaining Apple’s Fight With the F.B.I.” The New York Times. Last modified
February 17, 2016. Accessed April 29, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/
Legal Information Institute. “Fourth Amendment.” Cornell University Law School. Accessed May 4, 2016. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment.
Bazelon, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz. “The “I Have a Gun, and Her Name Is America” Edition.” Audio file. Slate’s Political Gabfest. Accessed February 22, 2016. http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/ gabfest/2016/02/ political_gabfest_on_scalia_replacement_gop_shenanigans_and_the_fbi_v_apple.html.