In the current internet era, use of cell phone, computers, and social media has increased to a level where every adult in the whole world owns one or is in excess of its services. These gadgets and their use are associated with many benefits. However, there are also drawbacks sidelined to the use of the gadgets. For example, there is increased terrorists attack in this phone generation than there were in the past regime. The gadgets have made communication effective allowing terror groups to expand even in territories they never existed. There is also increase in cyber threats using the same technology. To curb the threats, mobile phone produces and network providers have increased their customers' privacy using different encrypt feature. This paper examines the issue of public safety in relation to government's need to protect. Arguably, public safety and one's privacy is paramount in this era.
In essence, the encrypt features in cell phone and computers have protected many people from the threat. In that case, people have invested their money in gadgets that offer the best security services. The ruling to make Apple company help FBI with the unlocking software was biased. Although the owner of the phone was a criminal, his privacy was also supposed to be respected. According to a ruling made in India concerning the same cell phone privacy, the judge ruled that one's privacy is a right that should be respected (Dhapola, 2017). On my point of view, I support the ruling that privacy should be respected and in any case, no one should be allowed to access ones private information without the authority of the owner.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, in the governments strangle to fight terror; some rights can be violated too. In this case, San Bernardino killer was a terrorist connected to others. In an attempt to trace the others and the evil terror deals, the FBI required some information and which they could only get from the cell phone. Therefore, the ruling was friendly to them. The judge was also a patriot willing to assist in fighting terror (Credit Suisse, 2016). On the other hand is Apple Inc. iPhone produce. Their main market competitive advantage is cell phone security. The gadget has the best encrypt features that nobody without the passwords can unlock. The company is under threat of losing its customers due to this case. Hence, to maintain its customers' trust, the company was not supposed to give the unlocking software.
The government has pressured apple in many cases to give the way through to personal information but to date, Apple has not even once accepted to do so. In the Bernardino's case, Apple declined to offer FBI with the software as the court required. However, before the hearing, the government said that they had received assistance by a third party to open the four-digit code. The FBI announced they had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew the case. In another scenario, a magistrate judge in Brooklyn ruled that Apple could not be forced to unlock an iPhone. This was the best judgment in the protection of people's privacy and protection of Apple Company's rights to protect their product. The government appealed the ruling, but then they were given the correct password before the hearing dropping the case (Smythe, Christie, Kary, & Tiffany, 2016). To sum up the discussion, one's privacy is very important and is a right that should not be violated.
References
Credit Suisse, (2016). Apple ordered to help FBI hack San Bernardino killer Syed Farook's phone. Retrieved on Nov 19, 2017
Dhapola, S., (2017). Tech News, Supreme Court judgment on Right to Privacy: What will it mean for WhatsApp, Aadhaar case? Retrieved on Nov 19, 2017
Smythe, Christie, Kary, & Tiffany (2016). "Apple Wins in Brooklyn Battle Over Unlocking iPhone". Bloomberg News. Retrieved on Nov 19, 2017
