Randy Burgos-Cruz

Principles of Marketing- Extra Credit

The controversial case between the F.B.I. and Apple has taken a
turn for the inevitable. We all could have predicted that both sides
would do what they could to prolong the situation if it would benefit
their case. In this matter, the F.B.I. , while battling Apple in court,
devised their own back door to the situation: instead of relying on
Apples corporation, they simply found a hacker capable of breaking
into the iPhone of terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook. Many ethical issues
arise on both sides of the aisle: did Apple have a civic duty to their
country to assist the F.B.I? Did the F.B.I. overstep the boundary of
legality when it employed a hacker to break into the phone? Both
questions are up for debate, but its reasonable to conclude that the
F.B.I.s actions guaranteed that this case will be an ongoing debate for
the foreseeable future.
Prior to the F.B.I. circumventing Apples assistance, the D.E.A.
were fighting a very similar case against Apple in New York. In a legal
matter case involving drug charges, the D.E.A. needed access to the
accused partys phone. With the assistance of the F.B.I., neither agency
was able to break Apples security measures on the iPhone 5, so the
case was brought to court in an effort to force Apple to break its
encryption. U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled against the

agency, concluding that the law does not justify imposing on Apple
the obligation to assist the governments investigation against its will.
His argument was, essentially, how can we force a company, who had
no involvement in the criminal charges being pursued against the
accused, to cooperate with the federal government? The Justice
Department has since filed an appeal to the district court, but many
feel the ruling will stand. The dilemma is an ethical matter within itself,
and both issues must clearly be addressed. Apple has argued that
breaking the encryption on an iPhone would open the floodgates to
hackers large and small everywhere in technology world. Phones, as
we all know, are more than just the basic communication device as we
once knew them. In many instances, they contain very important,
personal information about the owner. Many people have applications
for their bank accounts on there. The security broken by the F.B.I.
doesnt just affect one terrorist with an iPhone; it affects every single
person who owns one. There are 682 million iPhone users out in the
world today (roughly 10% of the worlds population). Of the 164 million
smart phone users in the U.S., there are 75 million iPhone users.
Suffice to say, many of us are iPhone users. The F.B.I. needs to be very
meticulous when disclosing any information about the tactics used in
the phone break in. They need to also ensure total compliance with
whomever they employed to complete this task.

I dont have an issue with the F.B.I. circumventing Apple to break

into one of their phones, but the agency must understand that the
microscope has now turned to them, and if the process they used to
break into Syed Rizwan Farooks iPhone gets into the wrong hands,
they will be single handedly responsible for compromising the security
and privacy of 682 million people.