Skip to main content

Post #3

Our phones are an extension of our privacy as we keep some of our most important secrets and information on there. What were to happen if law enforcement could hack your iPhone? What if they could get into it bypassing your lock screen? Well in one case the FBI asked Apple to write a code that'll make iPhones susceptible to being opened by those means. Thankfully Apple refused, because "this would make the unhackable phone, hackable," (Bijan,Khosravi,2016). This would clearly be a violation of someone's privacy due to the fact that a breach of privacy is defined as intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs, or the public disclosure of embarrassing private information. This could be literally anything on your phone and anything that could be used in order to put you in bad standing with anyone or group people.
I believe that this is one example of how the government tries to bypass privacy and by them requesting that Apple do that means that they don't care about your privacy and that means to you if you are suspected criminal. Yes it would be good if that person really was a criminal, but imagine if that person was innocent then their privacy would be invaded in vain with law enforcement not being able to be held accountable. Privacy is what makes someone feel secure with their personal stuff and helps them in some degree function on a day-to-day basis and that I think is very important. If they had done this it would leave the door open for hundreds of hackers to hack your iPhone, being someone who personally cannot let their phone out of their sit I don't think this would sit too well.


Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bijankhosravi/2016/02/28/apple-vs-the-feds-is-it-liberty-for-all-or-liberty-just-for-me/#51a9555f5332

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 4, 2017 at 9:54 PM

    From my understanding, your argument here is that the government should not be able to access information on our mobile devices without consent because it is a violation of our privacy under the First Amendment. I agree and disagree with this argument. In agreement, I would say that what I keep on my phone is personal and owned by me, so anyone who accesses it without my consent would be violating my privacy, just like if someone were to enter my home or bug my home with cameras or voice recorders. I think there is one exception to my opinion, which would be where I disagree with your argument. This exception would be the use of phone tapping, or "hacking" like you mention, by the government. I get that it may seem like a violation of privacy because they are accessing private information without consent, but in reality it is not. The only reason the government would tap someones phone would be out of suspicion of criminal acts that could put people or the country in serious danger.

    Your example of the FBI's request to Apple about tapping was interesting to me because Apple denied the request. The FBI is purposed with investigating violations of federal law such as cyber crime, terrorism, and corruption. Don't you think there could be signs of these crimes on someone's phone, where they keep all of their important and personal information? Our growing technologies and platforms of communication are making it extremely difficult for the government to catch people performing criminal acts, and the FBI's request seemed to be a good strategy in my opinion.

    One thing I would also like to mention is the CIA. There job is literally to spy on people, specifically people who pose potential threats to our country. One of their tactics that was leaked to the public about two years ago is phone hacking. They apparently have special programs that can hack suspect's phones, TVs, and PCs, according to the Wikileaks article "Here's how the CIA hacks your phones, TVs, and PCs."

    Privacy is important, yes, but when there is a potential threat to our people or country, the government has to figure out how to stop it. To me, hacking a person's personal mobile device seems like it would be the most useful for finding guilt or innocence. I think that the government should be able to access our mobile devices if there is a serious suspicion of criminal intent.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more