Apple Vs FBI: The Ethics of Accessing Personal Data

Introduction

In today’s society, technology has grown into one of the most used and most wanted events of the millennium. This essay about Apple vs FBI controversy centers on whether Apple should be forced to create new software that would allow the FBI to access data from locked iPhones, and I argue that Apple should not comply due to concerns about personal information, setting a dangerous precedent, and potential harm to their reputation.

Apple vs FBI

Although the FBI cooperates with Apple to investigate of a domestic terrorist attack, I argue that Apple should not cooperate with FBI because of, personal information/User’s trust, Dangerous precedent, and harm their international reputation.

Apple argues the court cannot force speech form the company, particularly when the speech would be against Apple’s own interest. Customers want their personal information to be secure so that others won’t have access to them without permission. Apple access to personal and confidential data to defend customers store on its devices. Value of personal data and how people feel about it Indeed, personal information’s are important to all of everyone. Giving the authority the power of invading our privacy, creates an effortless way for them to violate their power and take away citizens of their constitutional rights.

The invention of the new operating system will also make a dangerous precedent for future corporations that will influence everyone negatively. Apple firmly believes that creating this necessary backdoor system will build a risky chain of effects that will affect everybody from smartphone users to social media companies and their privacy. Apple, a famous billion-dollar company have been so successful at protecting their customer's information protected. In “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent,” Darrell Issa oversees statistics and past evidence to effectively convince his audience of governors that they need to believe Apple should force to hack it or not because it may possibly bring people to a dangerous situation and neglect the purpose of protecting people’s privacy.

Eventually, Apple could have possibly lost customers for the reason of their reputation by changing the protection of their cellular products. Had Apple chosen to make software for this particular issue, there would be no restrictions to government invasion of data. The topic has already been raised that making software to access one locked device could possibly allow accessing for hackers to attack lots of other people’s devices. I concur that Apple should not build new software to unlock the phone because once a lock is built there are no limits to who or how the coding can be applied. Although Apple’s products wound up looking that less safe, the result does improve Apple’s reputation as a defender of privacy, and its claim that powerful encryption isn’t a security damage. At the end of the day, it’s rare for cell phone information to be totally and completely inaccessible.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over whether Apple should create new software to allow the FBI to access data from locked iPhones is a complex issue with significant implications for personal information, precedent, and reputation. While the FBI argues that such access is necessary for national security, Apple contends that creating a backdoor to access this information would set a dangerous precedent and could harm their reputation. In light of these concerns, I agree that Apple should not comply with the FBI's request, as doing so could potentially undermine the privacy and security of all smartphone users. Ultimately, it is essential to balance the need for security with the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information.