In today’s society, technology plays a major role. With the increase in technology comes an apparent decrease in privacy. Ultimately, leading to the question of: when and under what circumstances should the government be able to access information encrypted on personal devices?
Universal Law Michael Schrage, a Research Fellow stated, “hard cases make bad law.” What is meant by this quote is, a severe case is a negative basis for a universal law because it will encompass a wider array of less severe cases. Generally, a universal law is best written for typical circumstances because they are more reoccurring. In regards to the San Bernardino shooting, there was no correct answer that law enforcement could have made. In this circumstance, there was no “good” answer, law enforcement was put in an all-around hard place. They made a choice to go against Apple’s wishes in an attempt to protect the lives of others and further loss of life. Overall, any choice that law enforcement had to make in that instance was perceived as the “wrong” choice.
Apple’s Reaction …show more content…
The device happened to be an Apple product, which are specially designed to protect their consumer’s privacy. Therefore, a federal judge ordered the company to assist law enforcement with the “cracking” of the suspect’s phone. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, responded to the judge by rejecting the order. They rejected the order fearing that if they made an acceptation and invaded the privacy of one customer, then other customers would no longer find their products appealing. Accommodating with this request, would lead to Apple consumers no longer having any privacy. If a judge says they want access to encrypted devices, and that access is granted, privacy no longer
Universal Law Michael Schrage, a Research Fellow stated, “hard cases make bad law.” What is meant by this quote is, a severe case is a negative basis for a universal law because it will encompass a wider array of less severe cases. Generally, a universal law is best written for typical circumstances because they are more reoccurring. In regards to the San Bernardino shooting, there was no correct answer that law enforcement could have made. In this circumstance, there was no “good” answer, law enforcement was put in an all-around hard place. They made a choice to go against Apple’s wishes in an attempt to protect the lives of others and further loss of life. Overall, any choice that law enforcement had to make in that instance was perceived as the “wrong” choice.
Apple’s Reaction …show more content…
The device happened to be an Apple product, which are specially designed to protect their consumer’s privacy. Therefore, a federal judge ordered the company to assist law enforcement with the “cracking” of the suspect’s phone. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, responded to the judge by rejecting the order. They rejected the order fearing that if they made an acceptation and invaded the privacy of one customer, then other customers would no longer find their products appealing. Accommodating with this request, would lead to Apple consumers no longer having any privacy. If a judge says they want access to encrypted devices, and that access is granted, privacy no longer