Madrigal 1

Ivan Madrigal
Professor Simone Flanigan
English 2010
7 August 2016
Annotated Bibliography Draft
All Things Considered: Apple Says IOS Encryption Protects Privacy; FBI Raises Crime Fears.
National Public Radio. Literature Resource Center, 18 October 2014. Web. 30 July 2016.
This article in Newsweek talks about the standoff between Apple and the FBI, and whether or
not Apple let China do a security audit and/or give them their source code. In theory, if China
knew the source code, they might be able to create a backdoor into Apples encryption. Which is
what the FBI wants Apple to do for them. The FBI demanded Apple help them crack open the
cellphone used by San Bernardino killer Syed Rizwan Farook, and essential giving them access
to all Apple products physically in their possession. Apple supported by other U.S. technology
companies quickly said they would never create such a thing. This source is very useful to
because it lays down some of the background information in the main story I am researching for
my topic. It is also instrumental because it informed me about the double standard Apple may
have when it comes to letting governments gain access to their customers private digital
information.
Cook, Tim. " A Message to Our Customers." Apple. Apple Inc., 16 February 2016. Web. 30 July
2016.
This letter written by Tim Cook (CEO of Apple) is Apples public response to the FBI and many
of its customers concerned over security on their smartphones. He says The United States
government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of
our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.
I wanted to get Apples side of the story on the issue, and whats better than getting it straight
form the source. Cook goes on to say why encryption is so important and why the San
Bernardino case was not a good enough reason to give the FBI a backdoor to all its phones. This
letter is very important, so I can make sure I considered Apple side of the situation.

Madrigal 2
Counterpoint: Compelling Technology Companies to Disable Encryption Sets a Dangerous
Precedent and Threatens Civil Liberties. Points of View. Points of View Reference
Center, July 2016. Web. 30 July 2016.
Requiring technology companies to disable their own security protocols to aid government and
law enforcement agencies sets a dangerous precedent. Which could ultimately make these
companies and all citizens vulnerable to breaches in data privacy, such as hacking and identity
theft. The potential benefit of partnering with law enforcement does not outweigh the deep and
permanent compromise of civil liberties. This article sides with strong encryption, and it really
drives home my argument that it not worth it to make a backdoor in Apple encryption. There are
many reasons why someone would want to keep information on their private. The percentage of
people the government would actually catch is so minuscule, that any argument to make a
backdoor makes me think that its not really about catching bad guys.
Fowler, Bree. "Comey: Conversations About Encryption Issue Still Needed." AP Financial New.
Points of View Reference Center, 27 July 2016. Web. 30 July 2016.
I picked this source, so I could show what the FBI was saying on the Matter. FBI Director James
Comey said government and the tech industry need to sort out their differences over encryption
before "something terrible happens" that would make productive conversations impossible.
"We've got to have this conversation before that happens, because after that, the time for
thoughtful reflection will be significantly reduced." The FBI, other members of law enforcement,
and some members of Congress, have called for legislation mandating the use of so-called "back
doors" into encrypted devices. Although I might not agree with what the director is saying, I
thought it was important to show his reasoning for wanting a backdoor. I can use this source to
make me sound more credible for considering both sides of the discussion and then point out
what is wrong with the director line of reasoning.