Contention 1: In light of the recent incident in San Bernadino, the hacking device that the U.S. government is in possession of could violate European citizens’ human rights.
Subpoint A: Any usage of this “backdoor” could be seen as a threat to the human rights of European citizens.
According to the fine print within Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all states within the continent of Europe have a legal obligation to ensure that no human rights are being infringed upon by another State. In this particular case, seeing as the U.S. are already in possession of a device or hacking system that is able to bypass a security system that is owned by Apple (a technology company that owns 155,770,000 iPhones outside of the U.S.). According to a letter issued by Dan Cook, CEO of Apple, the U.S. government would be able to use this device whenever they please, to break into whichever iPhone they want to if there is probable cause. With this violation in play with the San Bernadino iPhone, every iPhone user in Europe would then have their human rights violated by the government of the United States which would result in a …show more content…
(the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct). In this particular case, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 31% of Americans are confident in the government keeping their information secure and 93% would be very satisfied with maintaining their own data and information. This relates to this moral philosophy as the majority of Americans wish to keep their information private so for the government to gain ownership of one phone in regards to potentially gaining ownership of hundreds of people's’ information it would be a harm to the greater good of
Subpoint A: Any usage of this “backdoor” could be seen as a threat to the human rights of European citizens.
According to the fine print within Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all states within the continent of Europe have a legal obligation to ensure that no human rights are being infringed upon by another State. In this particular case, seeing as the U.S. are already in possession of a device or hacking system that is able to bypass a security system that is owned by Apple (a technology company that owns 155,770,000 iPhones outside of the U.S.). According to a letter issued by Dan Cook, CEO of Apple, the U.S. government would be able to use this device whenever they please, to break into whichever iPhone they want to if there is probable cause. With this violation in play with the San Bernadino iPhone, every iPhone user in Europe would then have their human rights violated by the government of the United States which would result in a …show more content…
(the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct). In this particular case, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 31% of Americans are confident in the government keeping their information secure and 93% would be very satisfied with maintaining their own data and information. This relates to this moral philosophy as the majority of Americans wish to keep their information private so for the government to gain ownership of one phone in regards to potentially gaining ownership of hundreds of people's’ information it would be a harm to the greater good of