The terrorist attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, on December 2, 2015 resulted into killing of 14 people and injuring 22 others. Both the perpetrators involved in the attack were killed in a shootout by law enforcement later that same day. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducting the investigation recovered an undamaged iPhone in the shootout from one of the shooters. The phone had a six-digit password and was set to eliminate all its data after five failed password attempts. FBI desired access to the data for which it appealed the Apple, a private company, to create a new software that would enable FBI to unlock the phone. They wanted to extract data like contacts, photos and calls from locked iPhones in order to assist in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Apple denied the request of the FBI to build a backdoor into the iPhone. Apple argued that building a backdoor would have far reaching consequence beyond the case and would jeopardize the data security of other Apple users as well. They further explained that while selling their devices, apple has entered into a legal contract promising to preserve the privacy of their users. Allowing government to access the iPhone will lead to breach in trust that exist between the customer and the company. The government suggested utilization of the tool only once for this particular phone. Opposing the suggestion, Apple explained that once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. The company concluded it would be wrong for the government to force them to build a backdoor into their products. The case was widely covered by the print and electronic media. There was a surge in 'for and against' debate on the social media platforms. Tech giants such as Microsoft and Facebook also supported Apple and displayed their opposition to the government's demand for creating a backdoor. The families of victims and survivors of the attack supported the FBI's demand. The National Sheriffs' Association remarked Apple's stance as "putting profit over safety" and "has nothing to do with privacy." Considering the whole situation, do you agree that Apple's action was justified? Why or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case.

Answered by 1 topper · CSE 2023

Syllabus: Case Studies on above issues.