The semantics of the issue are the driving force behind the dispute between Apple and the FBI. One of Apple’s primary security features on their iPhones is the random, embedded encryption key that is generated at the time of production. This allows users to only have the ability to access their phones with the correct pin and encryption key combination. If the pin is entered more than ten times, the encryption key is erased, and even Apple claims to have no way to recover the data on the locked phone. The FBI wanted Apple to change this feature, so they can use traditional methods of trying many different access codes until the right combination is entered to access the phone (Michael). Essentially, the FBI wants a different operating system
…show more content…
The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the people have “the right… to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” (“The Constitution of the United States”). In modern cases with the emergence of a technologically driven society, courts have adopted this for personal data as well. Additionally, U.S. intelligence agencies have to go through the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get permission to conduct surveillance on American citizens, and the judges cannot give permission to the agency unless it has probable cause that the American citizen in question is involved in espionage or terrorism. Therefore, the FBI would not be using the software to access iPhones unless it has probable cause that the person in question is a danger to other American citizens. While the FBI has stated they will not use the software again, it would make it substantially easier to gain information on other terrorists if this FBI v Apple case already set a precedent on how to handle these situations, allowing the FBI to be more efficient in their primary goal of protecting the United
The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the people have “the right… to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” (“The Constitution of the United States”). In modern cases with the emergence of a technologically driven society, courts have adopted this for personal data as well. Additionally, U.S. intelligence agencies have to go through the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get permission to conduct surveillance on American citizens, and the judges cannot give permission to the agency unless it has probable cause that the American citizen in question is involved in espionage or terrorism. Therefore, the FBI would not be using the software to access iPhones unless it has probable cause that the person in question is a danger to other American citizens. While the FBI has stated they will not use the software again, it would make it substantially easier to gain information on other terrorists if this FBI v Apple case already set a precedent on how to handle these situations, allowing the FBI to be more efficient in their primary goal of protecting the United