The FBI–Apple encryption dispute concerns whether and to what extent courts in the United States can compel manufacturers to assist in unlocking cell phones whose data are cryptographically protected.There is much debate over public access to strong encryption.

1. Computer & Society
“Apple vs. FBI”
Instructor : Dr.Riham AbdelKader
Assistants:
Mr.Ali Ghosn
Ms.Madona Zankar
Course # : Cmps325
Hani Abdallah
201601941

2. vs
The Problem :
The FBI recovered an Apple iPhone 5C—owned by the San Bernardino County,
California government—that had been issued to its employee, Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the
shooters involved in the December 2015 San Bernardino attack. The attack killed 14 people and
seriously injured 22. The two attackers died four hours after the attack in a shootout with police,
having previously destroyed their personal phones. Despite having recovered Farook's work
phone, the authorities were at a loss, for it had been locked with a four-digit password and was
also programmed to automatically delete all its data after ten failed password attempts.
On February 9, 2016, the FBI announced that it was unable to unlock the county-owned phone it
recovered, due to its advanced security features, including encryption of user data. The FBI first
asked the National Security Agency to break into the phone, but they were unable to since they
only had knowledge of breaking into other devices that are commonly used by criminals, and not
iPhones. As a result, the FBI asked Apple Inc. to create a new version of the phone’s IOS
operating system that could be installed and run in the phone’s random access memory to disable
certain security features that Apple refers to as "GovtOS". Apple declined due to its policy which
required it to never undermine the security features of its products. The FBI responded by
successfully applying to a United States magistrate judge, Sheri Pym, to issue a court order,
mandating Apple to create and provide the requested software.

3. Pros:
1- Help ensure and guarantee more security in the country.
2- Help to predict citizen social behavior by monitoring citizens.
3- Stop hateful and bad ideas from spreading on social media.
4- Guarantee a civilized and secure community.
Cons :
1- Not respecting the privacy of each individual.
2- Oppose against apple regulations and rules.
3- Cracking into 1 device will allow to get into more and more devices.
4- These private data could be stolen or sold to another parties.
5- Make Apple customers lose trust with Apple as a company.
vs

4. ETHICAL THE RIS :
vs
Kantianism:
-Rule 1: Its unacceptable , because by giving the FBI access to user iPhones we are no more
respecting the privacy of these users.
-Rule 2 : Its unacceptable , because if Apple gave access to FBI , Apple would be using users
privacy in order to satisfy FBI needs.
Social Contract Theory:
It’s unacceptable by the social contract theory , since Apple as a company has rules and privacy
policies and its to protect and ensure the data privacy of all its customers so giving access to user
data will be against Apple rules and policies.
Utilitarianism:
-Act: Its acceptable because the good in giving access to FBI is more than the bad since ensuring
a secure and protected environment is more important than caring about users privacy.
-Rule: Its acceptable because on long term the society will be more secure for every citizen to
live in , ensuring more civilized community.

5. vs
Point of view:
Apple was right for not giving access to FBI to access their phones even if they was asking
for one time entry , because this would lead to more and more accesses in the future which
will be against the right of privacy for apple customers and what apple promised for.