The story basically talks about the United States government had requested Apple to

take an unequalled step that might threatens the security of Apple users. But, Apple
refuses this request. IPhone had become an essential part of everyone lives. It stores their
data, personal information, current location and financial information. Above all this,
Apple is able to deeply committed to safeguarding their data. Apple had associated with
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the San Bernardino Case to support them from
arresting the terrorists. After that, the U.S government had requested Apple to build a
backdoor to the iPhone, which is a new version of firmware that bypasses security
features. This action would cause the users of Apple to have less protection and safe.
However, FBI had proposed a lawsuit against Apple with the use of the All Writs Act of
1789 to win the right to create the backdoor system. Anyway, Apple is challenging the
FBIs demands with all due respect for the users freedom and liberty.
This issue had opened up a lot of disputes from many opinion leaders and experts.
Some supports the refusal of Apple for not making the backdoor whereas some said that
Apple should create a backdoor. According to Jesse, LJ (2016), who is an American civil
rights activist wrote this, if the government prevails against Apple, it is my belief that it
will accelerate and make it easier for government efforts to break into any iPhone and
intercept messages, access health records or financial data, track current location, or even
access phones microphone or camera without users knowledge as happened time and
time again during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The recent
revelation of the governments use of drones to conduct domestic spying shows how
vulnerable everyday Americans are to invasive surveillance.
Beside that, according to Mogull (2016 p.10), he mentioned that what the government
requested is unprecedented, and the situation purposely created by the Department of
Justice and FBI to force a confrontation that could endanger our civil rights for
generations to come. It is obvious that once the firmware had been created, there will be
no civil or human rights for the citizens. Apple had built a reputation on creating products
aimed at making peoples lives easier. They are looking out for their users, not trying to
make their technology warrant proof. Pew Research survey found that 51% respondents
said Apple should unlock the phone and 38% said that it should not. Weve heard people

say that refusing to unlock the iPhone is helping terrorists. Encryption is not about
helping the bad guys; it is about protecting the good guys and Internet users at large. Such
mandated insecurity would have devastating consequences and would undermine all of
the efforts we have collectively made to protect the safety of users and the Internet
(Thayer 2016). We also need to understand that any backdoors that companies are asked
to build are doors that can be opened, not just by law enforcement, but by others that
want to do harm roaming the Web. According to Thayer (2016), there is just no safe
backdoor. You are either safe or you are not.
The statement wrote above was the experts who think that Apple should not build the
system. On the other hand, there are a few opinions written by other experts said that
Apple should build the firmware. According to an expert, who is U.S. Senator, Cotton, T
(2016) wrote this Apple is not fighting for privacy; its fighting for profit. Apparently,
Apples marketing strategy had changed. Apple built its latest mobile operating system to
be more resistant to such unlocking which the data of an iPhone will be wiped out
thoroughly if a passcode is entered incorrectly for too many times. If Apple succeeds in
the court, the implications will be broad and dire. It will make clear to all terrorists as
well as drug traffickers that the products of Apple and other companies that follow
Apples lead will enjoy special immunity from lawful investigations. Terrorists and
criminals will feel free to plot, organize, and instigate through their iPhones, iPads, and
MacBooks because Apple will protect its brand more than our safety and security (Cotton
2016).
Furthermore, statement conducted by Leong, L (2016) and I quote, It would also be
naive to think that Apple is acting as the champion of our privacy rights strictly because it
cares about us. For Apple, its just good business. Taking a public stance for our privacy
rights is brilliant marketing, showing it is willing to stand up to the government to protect
your data. If, on the other hand, Apple grants the FBIs request for a backdoor, consumers
might lose trust, and turn to an alternative. In short, if Apple creates a backdoor, the
consumers would lose trust to the company, thus profit loss.
Tim Cook said this statement and I quote You can't have a back door that's only for
the good guys (Brown 2016 p.10). Once a back door had been premiered, the tools will

leak, any hackers or cybercriminals can exploit this back door system in which it would
cause the safety and freedom of Apple users to be at risk. However, the FBI has said that
they are interested only in the San Bernardino terrorists phone. But on the other side, the
U.S. Justice Department had already asked for at least 9 iPhones to be unencrypted in
other cases (Brown 2016 p.10). Based on this statement, we can see that once the back
door is created, the demand for the use of back door will definitely increase if the
government won the case which turns out the privacy of the Apple users might be in
danger too. So, I support the decision made by Apples CEO Tim Cook that he refuses to
create a backdoor system to Apples product.
If I am the CEO of Apple, I would refuse to create a backdoor system for my product.
The reason I refuse to create it is because the backdoor system might harm the consumers
of Apple. Their privacy will be at risk as their data will be explicit to others once the
backdoor system tool has been leaked. According to Apple vs. the FBI (2016, p. 3),
Once technology has a so-called back door installed, all kinds of people can walk in. If
the US government can demand access, the Chinese government can do so as well. Also,
the more Apple creates systems to unlock phones for government agencies, the more
vulnerable for hackers to exploit. In the end, this poses a threat to each of us. Right now,
the information on our phones can be kept truly private but if the FBI gets the technology
its demanding, the government may gain the ability to crack any phone in its
possession.
Another reason that I refuse to create it is because this system doesnt really help the
FBI when it comes to sophisticated criminals in the future. Highly-developed or
experienced criminals or hackers dont need devices such as Apple to secure their
communications. Apple vs. the FBI (2016, p.3) mentioned that if the U.S. government
forces Apple to break down the security of its products, they are not actually going to be
helping the FBI when it comes to sophisticated criminals. Their communications can be
kept secure without intermediate through Apple. Thus, the backdoor would work only for
petty criminals.