Federal law enforcement does the best job possible protecting American citizens. However, they occasionally will infringe on the civil rights of their citizens in their pursuit of this protection. Louis Brandies address this concern in his dissenting opinion in the Olmstead case: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." In the fight between Apple and federal law enforcement over a locked iPhone, the government is violating Apple’s Constitutional rights by asking for backdoor encryption software to their devices. If Apple allows the government to succeed without fighting back, it will open the floodgates for the government to encroach on Americans citizens and
…show more content…
The government cannot abridge the right of free speech or compel anyone to say what the government wants. The government claims that Apple is using the First Amendment to place their business over national security. But Apple argues the law is on their side with the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). This act states that government cannot compel any specific design of equipment, change in configuration, or features of electronic communication service or telecommunication equipment. Also, intellectual property is covered by free speech. The ruling on the case of Bernstein v. US Department of Justice held by the Ninth Circuit Court states that electronic code is free speech. The electronic code written by Apple is speech and therefore needs protection. The government cannot force Justin Timberlake to rewrite a song because there is a part they do not agree with. Justin Timberlake owns the rights to his music, not the government. If the government cannot force intangible products of intellectual property from doing their bidding, then they cannot force Apple to do their bidding as …show more content…
Smartphones are a mobile personal computer with Swiss army knife capability. The majority of smartphone users places their lives in their phones storing personal information such as photos, memos, emails, health data, and private conversations. Such a powerful and expensive device made it a target for thieves. Many iPhones were stolen, and so was the personal information of the owners. How did the thieves unlock the phone to get the information? They were able to brute force the password. Also, iClouds were hacked as well, and exposed customer’s information online. There were stories about Apple users, especially celebrities that had their iCloud hacked. Some were blackmailed to pay for their photos or have them leaked online. Actresses like Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton had personal nude photos released to the public, and again because of hackers brute forcing iCloud passwords. The outcry of customers who phones were either stolen or hacked place a black eye on Apple’s Company. These intrusions were the reason Tim Cook rolled out the new iOS8 and iOS9 updates, adding fingerprint touchscreen recognition, increasing the password slots from four to six, decreasing the chances of automatic software hacks, adding time between faulty attempts, and adding a data wipe feature after ten failed tries. Apple sole purpose of encryption is a stance to protect their brand and their customers from
The government cannot abridge the right of free speech or compel anyone to say what the government wants. The government claims that Apple is using the First Amendment to place their business over national security. But Apple argues the law is on their side with the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). This act states that government cannot compel any specific design of equipment, change in configuration, or features of electronic communication service or telecommunication equipment. Also, intellectual property is covered by free speech. The ruling on the case of Bernstein v. US Department of Justice held by the Ninth Circuit Court states that electronic code is free speech. The electronic code written by Apple is speech and therefore needs protection. The government cannot force Justin Timberlake to rewrite a song because there is a part they do not agree with. Justin Timberlake owns the rights to his music, not the government. If the government cannot force intangible products of intellectual property from doing their bidding, then they cannot force Apple to do their bidding as …show more content…
Smartphones are a mobile personal computer with Swiss army knife capability. The majority of smartphone users places their lives in their phones storing personal information such as photos, memos, emails, health data, and private conversations. Such a powerful and expensive device made it a target for thieves. Many iPhones were stolen, and so was the personal information of the owners. How did the thieves unlock the phone to get the information? They were able to brute force the password. Also, iClouds were hacked as well, and exposed customer’s information online. There were stories about Apple users, especially celebrities that had their iCloud hacked. Some were blackmailed to pay for their photos or have them leaked online. Actresses like Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton had personal nude photos released to the public, and again because of hackers brute forcing iCloud passwords. The outcry of customers who phones were either stolen or hacked place a black eye on Apple’s Company. These intrusions were the reason Tim Cook rolled out the new iOS8 and iOS9 updates, adding fingerprint touchscreen recognition, increasing the password slots from four to six, decreasing the chances of automatic software hacks, adding time between faulty attempts, and adding a data wipe feature after ten failed tries. Apple sole purpose of encryption is a stance to protect their brand and their customers from