Nicholas

Jamie McBeth-Smith
English 1010-028
April 20, 2016
Annotated Bibliography
iPhones are a great source of technology because they help us achieve
our everyday tasks and make our lives easier. With the touch of a finger, you
can access: websites, games, videos, and more; all of which are wonderful
things. Having passwords and fingerprint scanners to unlock your phone
allows you to keep your information secure. Having the ability to secure our
phones as we do, the question arises, if a crime is committed should the
police have access to our phones for possible evidence or is this an invasion
of our privacy and against our constitutional rights?
As I came across this topic, it was very interesting to learn that the
police are trying to get apple to give them access to iPhones for criminal
investigations. Before smartphone, criminals would hide evidence in places
like safes, file cabinets, closets and other places. Now they can keep
evidence with them of shootings, robbery, sexual assault and other things
simply on their phones.
Elizabeth, Weise, and TODAY USA Apple case boils down to 1 big question.
USA Today n.d.:

Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.

Weise explains the FBI Director James Comey asked the House Judiciary
committee The core question is this: Once all of the requirement and
safeguards of the laws and the Constitution have been met, are we
comfortable with the technical design decisions that result in barriers to
obtaining evidence of a crime? This question is asking when it comes to the
difference between national and personal security. In contrary Apple is
fighting a Feb. 16 court order that it help the FBI try to get into an iPhone
used by San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook by disabling a feature
that would lock investigators out if they made 10 unsuccessful tries to
determine the correct password. To interpret this quote, it is saying that an
FBI agent wanted apple to override the consumers privacy by disabling the
feature that erases the data on the phone if the passcode is incorrectly
entered 10 times.
This article is bringing about an investigation about our person privacy when
it comes to our electronic devices. The issue at hand is more of the fact of
can the government truly control our lives or is there any personal security
left in the world today. The author doesnt include any personal opinions but
sticks to the facts of bringing forth a current issue that is relevant to society.
What I take from this article is in a world where morals are in question, it is
good to see that companies dont just surrender to what the government
wants. I appreciate the fact that companies are not willing to surrender to

the governments demands at the expense which would infringe upon the
privacy of their customers. I am more willing to invest in the products of a
company that I know will stand by me in the end.
Mintz, Howard. Apple-FBI: Judge Oks Feds Request to Cancel Hearing over
iPhone Encryption. Oakland TribuneMar 21 2016. Proquest. Web. 5 Apr.
2016.

FBI wants Apple to secure the things that they need for their investigation
with Syed Rizwan Farook and the shooting in San Bernardino. Magistratel
Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to unlock Farooks phone but instead of
unlocking the phone, Apples response was a counterattack to the FBIs
demand. Along with Farooks case, there was a similar case in New York
about drugs. A federal judge sided with Apple and refused the FBIs request
for the iPhone to be unlocked. Apple has had several dozen requests to
unlock various iPhones nationwide. Apple warned that such an order could
invade the privacy of the customers and create other problems related to
privacy.
As I analyze what is going on, Apple is trying to protect the privacy rights of
their customers. Several requests were mentioned about unlocking iPhones
for FBI cases but, Apple didnt agree with the FBIs reasoning. They valued
their customers privacy more than what the FBI wanted. The author wants
to make it clear where Apple stands, and clearly shows this by repeatedly

stating their reasoning why the company does not want to give the
government access to customers privacy. I find this information convincing
because, Apple is showing that they really care about their customers. Apple
CEO representative Tim Cook stated in the companys defense, It is critical
to limit the governments ability to interfere with the increasing privacy
protections being installed through encryption in devices such as
smartphones. The author uses this quote to show again that Apple cares
about their customers and that is what gives the author credit in this article.
As I think about this article, it adds evidence and adds another view point to
the previous article. For example, the issue about the worlds morals being in
question. Apple shows that there is are good people in the world. They want
to respect others and make their customers not only satisfied, but also show
their integrity and loyalty to their customers. I really agree with where Apple
stands. Having integrity and loyalty in the world can go a long way. That is
what gets me to continue to pursue in a company like Apple. When I know
that someone has got me covered, I dont need to worry. Everything will go
smooth rather than the mystery none of us like.
DA says Apple is crippling investigations across the country. CNN Wire 29
Feb. 2016. Opposing viewpoints in Context. Web. 5 Apr. 2016
While privacy and security is valuable to everyone, District attorney Vance
Cyrus said that iPhone encryption cripples the most basic steps of a criminal
investigation and also prevents law enforcement from freeing or releasing

innocent people of suspected crimes. Vance also said that accessing

evidence on a smartphone is critical to helping solve the investigation and
dealing out the consequences. The argument continues saying that iPhones
are now the first products in all of American History that are beyond the
Fourth amendment warrants. This shows that in Vances defense that
companies are trying to bypass certain laws that allow the FBI to have
access to.
As David Goldman writes about this issue, he turns to District attorney Cyrus
Vance who is one we can look to for a two-way opinion. Vance states, I
understand there is a fear arising out of mass security breaches, collection of
bulk data, and warrantless surveillance, but that is not the access state and
local law enforcement seek or expect. While Vance is in favor of privacy,
Goldman also shows that he, Vance, is against it for a certain reason.
Goldman uses this evidence to show that encryption can be beneficial but it
still doesnt defeat the argument for FBI to have access to evidence on
smartphones. Goldman wants to help the viewers understand the importance
of why FBI agents should Apple grant access to encrypted iPhones to help
with investigations the FBI is conducting.
While reading and contemplating this article, I found it to be very insightful. I
agree with what Goldman says but on the other hand I think it is wrong. I feel
it is wrong because if the government was able to get access to encrypted
phones, they will abuse it and say we need to check your phone when all
they want to do is really control what is going on. People have the right to

choose what to do. We arent supposed to be baby sat. The government

should help us and keep us safe but not control what we do in our everyday
lives. I still feel like I would rather side with Apple and protect the privacy of
the customers.
Erin, Kelly, and TODAY USA. FBI director cautions encryption makes
information warrant
proof. USA TODAY n.d.: Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
The FBI director James Comey said that congress needs to decide whether or
not Apple and other tech companies should grant law enforcement the power
to obtain evidence of crime on encrypted phones. Comey claims that the
government doesnt want to expand its surveillance power but, to raise the
awareness about the emergences of warrant-proof spaces where critical
information cannot be found by law enforcement. Comey also claims that
allowing access to encrypted iPhones would be a one-time thing and only
apply and effect the terrorist, Syed Farooks phone. Apple said that if they
would allow this to happen, it would make all products vulnerable to hackers,
cyber criminals and government surveillance. Apples senior vice president
Bruce Sewell stated, Do we want to put a limit on the technology that
protects our data, and therefore our privacy and our safety, in the face of
increasing sophisticated cyber-attacks? What Sewell means is that we, as
technology users would be limited to our privacy on our phones and other
technological products.

I believe this is credible because the author clearly states that allowing the
FBI access to our phones, would defeat the purpose and take away our right
to privacy. What we put on our phones should be personal, and FBI shouldnt
have right to it, just because they want it. I find what the FBI wants very
ironic. They only want it for a one time use? I think not. Once the
government sees what they can do with the ability to access encrypted
phones, they wont want to give up that power. They will instead turn and
abuse it. The author clearly shows that by giving the government the power
to access an iPhone for a signal case would put everyones privacy at risk of
hackers and cyber-attackers. The author is credible for explaining using the
reasoning Vice President Bruce Sewell.
Reflecting on this article, it would be beneficial to the FBI if they were able to
access encrypted phones because they could gain evidence for crime
investigations and solve more cases. However, doing so would put a big risk
at hand that the Apple company doesnt want to take. I disagree with the
government gaining access to the encryption in iPhones but I do agree with
the alternate solution that was presented. Only by court order would law
enforcement have the right to access encrypted iPhones. This would be more
beneficial because it would only allow access to the encrypted phone for
court purposes.
Lichtblau, Eric and Joseph Goldstein. Justice Dept. Wants Apple To Unlock
More Phones. New York Times 24 Feb. 2016 B1+. Academic Premier. Web. 5
Apr. 2016

The Justice department wants Apple to unlock more phones for the purpose
of investigating crimes. Apple refuses to perform any services on the
devices. Prosecutors have demanded for Apple to help them unlock the
iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook as a limited response to an unusual situation.
Apple chief executive, Tim Cook, said, Once created, the technique could be
used over and over again on any number of devices and the FBI will have
hundreds of iPhones they want if they win. Apple did mention though that
once the data is technically able to do so, they would hand over the data
only with a court order.
This author is making a point but not a clear one. He is just stating the
possible outcomes on what could happen. He doesnt really show where he
stands and believes in about this whole situation. More evidence and opinion
could be included to help the author state his point in this matter
Apple really has good evidence about why they dont want to grant power to
encrypted phone. They are worried and concerned about the welfare of their
customers and their privacy. This to me proves that Apple is a company that
you can really trust and rely on. Without those good morals, things in the
world would continue to get worse.
After all of this research and reading, having a bunch of law enforcement
officials with power to get into phones seems to be a horrible idea. I wouldnt
want the government to have access to my phone. I dont have anything to
hide from the government, and its not that I dont want the government

around, its just about the fact that I like my privacy just like every human
being in the world does. I got nothing to hide from the government. I feel if I
have nothing to hide from the government, there is no reason they should
have access to my phone and my privacy.