Iphones, Inc. Case Study

1642 Words 7 Pages
A very recent topic that has been circulating in the news is the topic of the FBI and the company known as Apple. Apple is known for its many products ranging from iPhones, MacBook’s, and watches that most of you, I imagine, have. The controversy surrounds an iPhone 5c that was found to be the work phone of one of the two Islamic San Bernardino terrorists. The FBI is requesting that Apple creates a backdoor to install on the phone to disable its security features. Apple does not want to do this for privacy reasons. There are many controversial topics surrounding this issue and three of the topics that will be explored are the legal conditions, individual privacy versus national safety, and whether or not this is a marketing strategy on Apples …show more content…
According to Grant Gross from PCWorld, Apple can use the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment to defend themselves. The First Amendment right is that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (First). Gross reports that the company uses several court cases as an example for their First Amendment rights. He says they’re pointing to previous court cases that involved code also. The previous judges in the cases have expressed that code can be considered a form of speech. What the FBI wants Apple to do is write a new code, which is considered a form of speech. It violates the First Amendment rights as forcing speech and going against Apples interests. Gross also continues by saying that Apple is also arguing that this should not be forced upon them because the FBI has not proven that useful information will be found on the phone, it has only been speculated. According to Gross, “The Fifth Amendment protects U.S. residents against the government taking away their liberty” (Gross). What judges could force Apple to do is burdensome and violate their principles. According to Gross, lawyers argued that this is taking away their …show more content…
Fein reports that the First Amendment cannot be used because the First Amendment is there to protect democratic self-government and expressive autonomy. Expressive autonomy is a synonym for self-government and self-government is defined as “political independence and self-control” (Self). Fein goes on to argue that requiring a software corporation to form a new version of its software for a criminal investigation is not different than a subpoena requiring a witness to testify in court for a criminal investigation. The infringement of speech isn’t affected if it is from the power of the courts. As for the Fifth Amendment Fein says that Apple cannot use this. Apple is claiming that, although the Fifth Amendment states specifically, it is for “people”, it can be used for corporations also. Fein says that this argument is weak on Apples part because corporations do not have “liberty”. They are a corporation, not a person. He says the Supreme Court has acknowledged that due process protects “the liberty of natural, not artificial, persons” (Fein). This leaves the Fourth Amendment, which, according to Fein, Apple may use. It states that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”

Related Documents