Reimann 1

Nicholas
Jamie McBeth-Smith
English 1010-028
26, April 2016
Synthesis on Annotated Bibliography
This paper will attempt to discuss and synthesize sources on the
subject Encryption, Crime and iPhones. Throughout the course of researching
this subject, I found a lot of evidence of the various positions people take on
the subject of Encryption, Crime and iPhones. During this essay, I will be
discussing the various viewpoints sources that I have found from the
research as well as my own viewpoint on this subject.
Everyone enjoys their own privacy. I know I do. Privacy is something
that we all cherish. Before cell phones, we all had our little journals and safes
with our personal belongings, thus giving us a natural sense of privacy. Now
that technology has developed, we have cell phones and other electronic
devices on which we can now keep a journal, pictures, and other personal
information. Some people say that encryption should be available to the FBI
for cases in which privacy has been given up due to violations of the law. For
example, author Kelly Erin quotes James Comey, a government
representative, saying, The government is not trying to expand its
surveillance power, and that the FBIs request would only affect the iPhone

Reimann 2

of the suspect or person in questioning. This quote is saying that the

government only wants to encrypt this one phone for this one-time thing.
They wont ask to encrypt another phone unless it is pertinent to a similar
investigation like this one. The FBI wants to do their job and by having
access to the suspects phone, it would become a lot easier.
However, the Apple company warned, Writing a new code to unlock
[someones] phone will create a backdoor into the encrypted iPhones of
millions of consumers, making the devices vulnerable to hackers, cyber
criminals and government surveillance. To interpret this quote, granting the
FBI access to iPhones will create problems for other customers that use
iPhones even though it would benefit the investigation of a crime.
In my defense, I stand with the Apple company. Even though granting
the FBI access to unlock the phone could help provide more evidence of the
crime and benefit the investigation, it puts numerous people at risk for
hackers and those that cause these crimes. By unlocking one phone for an
investigation, millions of other users would be put at risk creating more
crimes that the FBI would have to deal with. Also, I fear hackers would
eventually gain access to the code the FBI has and work a way around it in
order to hide evidence of crimes that they committed, therefore the code
would become null and void to the FBI. This whole entire matter of trying to
gain access to one iPhone would be contradicting. Essentially, when the
government gains something useful for the good of society, there is always

Reimann 3

someone that finds a way to manipulate the governments policies and plans
and what was once good for their own benefit.
A different argument that others might make is that the Apple
Company is being rude, selfish, stingy and not wanting to help anyone but
themselves. For example, District Attorney Cyrus Vance prepared a
testimony saying, Apples encryption policy frustrates the ability of law
enforcement to prevent, investigate, and prosecute criminals, including the
very hackers that Apple claims it wants to protect users against. What
Vance is trying to convey is that Apple protects all their customers, even if
they are criminals and they, Apple, are helping criminals hide evidence of the
crimes the criminals have committed on their iPhones or other devices.
On the contrary, Apple defends their belief in protecting their
customers privacy. For example, Apple claims that such an order would
jeopardize the privacy rights of tens of millions of customers, prompting a
national debate over the balancing act between the needs of the law
enforcement to solve crimes and hunt down terror suspects and the privacy
rights of a public reliant on smartphones in everyday life. Basically, the Apple
company is saying that they want to respect the citizens rights given to
them by the fourth amendment which awards privacy to citizens.
Although I understand why the government wants access to the
iPhones involved in crimes, I agree more with Apple and their statement
about wanting to respect the fourth amendment rights of citizens. In my

Reimann 4

defense, I feel it is more important to have laws and rights respected rather
than one case be solved. Laws were created for the safety and wellness of
people. Without these laws, chaos would expand and the government would
lose control. As citizens, we rely on these laws for our safety and well-being.
Without these laws being in effect, our identities and status would be unclear
and chaotic.
Furthermore, another argument people make is asking where the
difference lies between national and personal privacy. Again, James Comey
quotes, The core question is this: Once all of the requirements and
safeguards of the laws and the Constitution have been met, are we
comfortable with the technical design decisions that result in barriers to
obtaining evidence of a crime? What this boils down to is a simple yes or no
question: are we as citizens comfortable with the government having access
to our private lives? Some people would argue yes and some would argue no.
I personally feel more comfortable knowing that the government does not
have access to my personal life. In general, the government has access to
some personal information about its citizens, however, more often than not,
they avoid accessing this information due to privacy and other laws. In
general, the government will only access this personal information if it is
necessary for the benefit of security.
Apple CEO, Tim Cook states, It is critical to limit the governments
ability to interfere with the increasing power privacy protections being
installed through encryption in devices such as smartphones. What Tim

Reimann 5

Cook is saying is that there should be restrictions on how much access the
government has on getting information about or from our personal lives,
especially the information we have on our smartphones.
Personally, I agree with what CEO Tim Cook has to say. I feel like the
government has some good valid points for why they want to gain access to
iPhones, but on the other hand, I feel like the government asks for too much.
I feel when people are in power that they tend to want a little more than they
have already. My reasoning for this is that throughout history, people in
power always wanted more than what they had. Those people in power had a
lot already but they just wanted to satisfy their personal interest and needs. I
feel that even though the government has power and is there to help us,
there are some members of the government that would desire power and
would do anything they could to have access to this power. Hence my
reasoning for why I stand with Apple in this certain situation.
In conclusion, privacy is important. My personal life is something that I
enjoy and I wish to keep it private and away from the government. The
government made laws to protect our privacy. By trying to gain access
someones iPhone and gather private and personal information about them is
truly ironic. The government is undermining the very laws our founding
fathers established. Our government was created to protect and uphold
these laws. It is very disappointing to see that the people we look to for
protection and safety are the ones that are trying to interfere with our
personal and private lives. Or in other words, the people we thought that

Reimann 6

were protecting our privacy and rights from outsiders are actually the ones
invading the things that they swear to protect. Prior to my research on this
subject, I wasnt really sure where I stood on this topic. I understood both
sides of the argument and it was difficult for me to decide to take a side.
After my research however, I was able to find where I stand and who I side
with. Apple has caught my interest on the things that they have discussed
because I feel a better connection with Apple compared to the governments
argument. I feel that overall, the government is trying to do the right thing,
however, they are trying to manipulate the laws that are put forth to protect
us as citizens. In my defense, the laws should not be tampered with. The law
is the law. There is nothing that can defeat the law. Apple is trying to convey
to the government that this is something that they should not be doing. They
should be allowing the laws to stay in effect and not even bother with trying
to find a way around them to get the things that they would like to solve just
a single case.

Citations
Elizabeth, Weise, and TODAY USA Apple case boils down to 1 big question.
USA Today n.d.:

Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.

Mintz, Howard. Apple-FBI: Judge Oks Feds Request to Cancel Hearing over
iPhone Encryption. Oakland TribuneMar 21 2016. Proquest. Web. 5
Apr. 2016.

Reimann 7

DA says Apple is crippling investigations across the country. CNN Wire 29

Feb. 2016. Opposing viewpoints in Context. Web. 5 Apr. 2016
Erin, Kelly, and TODAY USA. FBI director cautions encryption makes
information warrant
proof. USA TODAY n.d.: Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
Lichtblau, Eric and Joseph Goldstein. Justice Dept. Wants Apple To Unlock
More Phones. New York Times 24 Feb. 2016 B1+. Academic Premier.
Web. 5 Apr. 2016