1) Read the article
2) Compose and post a well-written response to the article that includes something you learned from the article and a reflection (How did what you learned make you feel...in other words your opinion about the content of the article) You will write the "What did I learn" and the "How does that make me feel" in separate paragraphs. Be sure to include references to the content of the article and should you choose to do some extra research on your own to find out additional information to help with your knowledge of this content please be sure to reference that research as well. For example "in an article from Time magazine on Feb 15th entitled 'Blah, Blah, Blah'..."
Your assignment is worth 20 points and is due by the time class starts next Monday February 29th.
Article 1 Apple fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's Iphone Should Apple be forced by the US Govt to cooperate further in the investigation into the couple who killed 14 people or can Apple decline on the grounds that they wish to protect their customers future confidentiality?
Article 2 Justice Antonin Scalia's Death Quickly Sparks a Political Debate Justice Scalia had served on the US Supreme Court for almost 30 years and rather unexpectedly died in Texas a week and a half ago. Who should replace him? Who should decide who the replacement should be? What should President Obama do? What should the Republican-led Senate do?
Article 3 Oregon Standoff is Expected to Cost Millions, and Occupiers may pay Part of the Bill For 6 weeks the showdown lasted between anti-government protesters and government officials from local, state and federal law enforcement near the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Now that it is over who is left with the bill for all those resources? What if you were the city of Burns, Oregon (pop. 2806) in Harney County, Oregon (pop.7422)? The next protest of this magnitude could be coming to the town nearest you and your taxes could be paying the tab.
Article 4 The Next Flint With an aging and corroding infrastructure, the next Flint, Michigan could be your community. How do we prevent this from happening or do we hold our breath and hope it doesn't. Gov't officials in Flint, Michigan apparently choose the latter and now look what happened. The future could be sooner than you realize.
Article 5 Obama Takes Last Chance to Close Guantanamo Bay After 9/11, Guantanamo was created and while running for president back in 2008, then Illinois Senator Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to close Guantanamo Bay. Here we are in 2016, Guantanamo is still open for business and once again the President is promising to close it.
Enjoy and remember to write this well as all your classmates can read it,
Mr. Thompson
From the article, “Justice Antonin Scalia’s death quickly sparks political battle”, I learned a little background on the Supreme Court. Obviously, the Supreme Court is the largest court and part of the Judicial branch, but what I didn’t know is that the justices are split up between conservatives and liberals. Justice Scalia was a strong conservative that served for thirty years, which is one of the longest periods of time a justice has served. I also discovered that the candidates running for office are eating this up like a fresh pie that just came out of the oven. The Republicans disagree with the front-running Democrat, Hillary Clinton, and believe that the next president should select a justice with his or her own beliefs. With Barack Obama as president now, there is a good chance that he will be nominating a liberal if he decides to. Hillary Clinton stated, “The president has a responsibility to elect a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote”. On the other hand, Marco Rubio said, “I do not believe the President should appoint someone, Obama will ram down our throat a liberal justice”. This is a large debate due to the fact that the Supreme Court is such an important part of our government with its decision making.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Supreme Court must have an equal split between liberal and conservative justices. Obama can make a move and nominate a liberal, but the Senate will most likely shoot that down. My move would be to select a new conservative justice to fill the empty seat where Antonin Scalia made his decisions.
-Eric Mehus
Lol, jk.. So there are nine justices.. which is dumb. In my opinion, I believe there should be a 50-50 split between conservatives and liberals. What I would like to see is there be a 9th justice that has both liberal and conservative beliefs. Now some liberals may have a conservative side and vice versa, but if there is going to be a 9th.. make it a hybrid.
DeleteWhat I learned in this article (the first one), was that on December 2, 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. It was a mass shooting and an attempted bombing. This article was written by Eric Lichtblau and Kate Benner on February 17, 2016, and the main purpose of it was because Apple will not unlock on of the gunman’s iPhone due to security reasons, and many people are against that because they believe it could help find out on why the gunman did what he did and murdered so many innocent people. In the article it stated, “It is unfortunate,” the department said in a statement, “that Apple continues to refuse to assist the department in obtaining access to the phone of one of the terrorists involved in a major terror attack on U.S. soil.” This shows that Apple is refusing to unlock the iPhone. Whether you argue if the situation Apple is in is right or wrong, it makes you question if there was evidence or a reason on the phone that the gunman was hiding, and if the iPhone was released, would the FBI find the information they need? Donald Trump also put his opinion on in the topic, like he claims to do in every situation, but he attacked Apple on Fox News, asking, “Who do they think they are?” Although many people disagree and say Apple is in the wrong, Apple had many defenders to support the privacy issue. “Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers,” said Alex Abdo, staff lawyer for the American Civil Liberty Union’s privacy and technology section. Whatever Apple decides to do, if they unlock the phone to try and find evidence, or if they decide not too because of the privacy issue, this is a situation where you could debate on for quite a while, good or bad.
ReplyDeleteThis article makes me feel that by being an iPhone user that my information is enclosed, and I do have privacy, but at the same time I can contradict myself because I think Apple should be able to look in one of the gunman’s phone for safety reasons to be able to see if he planned the shooting/attempted bombing and then decide what his consequences could/would be.
-Kenyatta Kruetzfeldt
The article titled, Justice Antonin Scalia’s Death Quickly Sparks a Political Debate, discusses the death of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice who has served in that position for about 30 years. The controversy over his passing revolves around his replacement. The current President and the Presidential Candidates are arguing over who should have the ability to select Scalia’s successor. Republicans fear that if President Obama chooses the new Justice, then he/she will be a democrat and their opposing views on how the court system should function will not align. A majority of the Supreme Court is currently republican, so even if Obama chose a democratic successor, the court would not accept his selection. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell thinks that the American people should have a say in this matter, and therefore believes that the newly elected President should choose who the Supreme Court Justice is in January of 2017. Contrastingly, Senate Minority leader Harry Reid thinks that we need to make a decision as soon as possible due to all of the important issues that the Supreme Court has to currently deal with without a Justice.
ReplyDeleteOverall, both arguments are relevant and I can see where each side is coming from. But, I personally feel as though Barack Obama, the current President, should be able to choose who the Supreme Court Justice is. There are many issues that cannot be “held off” for 11 months. We need to take action now, and I am sure that President Obama will make a wise decision that will be in favor of both political parties.
- Taryn Adams (Hour 1)
On February 15th, Eric Lichtblau and Katie Benner from The New York Times wrote an article, ‘Apple Fights Order To Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone’, discussing the controversy between the F.B.I. and Apple. It all began back on December 2, 2015, when Tashfeen Malik and husband Syed Farook opened fire at a social services facility in San Bernardino, California, resulting in 14 deaths. The main idea behind this article is the F.B.I. wanting Apple to “unlock” the iPhone used by the shooters, however Apple refuses and later claims that the software to do so does not even exist. The Justice Department expresses agreement with the F.B.I. stating, “It is unfortunate...that Apple continues to refuse to assist the department in obtaining access to the phone of one of the terrorists involved in a major terror attack on U.S. soil”. Although Apple received a lot of backlash for not giving into the government, Apple has also gained many supporters. “‘Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers’, said Alex Abdo, a staff lawyer for the American Civil Liberty Union’s privacy and technology section. The article then goes on to explain the idea of technology being protected by encryption and the concerns the government has with it.
ReplyDeleteI strongly support the F.B.I. on this case and I believe that Apple CEO Tim Cook and his company should “unlock” the iPhone and give the government access. There is a possibility that the iPhone contains valuable information that could lead the investigation to possible partners in the deadly acts of terrorism and perhaps lead to other attacks that were/are being planned. By doing so, they could potentially save many lives.
- Nicole Ernst (Hour 5)
The article, 'Justice Antonin Scalia's Death Quickly Sparks a Political Debate'really does show the significance of a supreme court justice. Scalia was a justice since 1986 for a total of 30 years. This article talks about whether Obama should appoint another justice, or let the next president have the honors. President Obama does have the right to do so, but many of the Republicans believe the next president should choose. Republicans fear Obama choosing another liberal and want the opportunity to appoint a conservative justice member. I think that even though Obama does have the right to appoint someone he shouldn't because he has already appointed two already during his presidency which is more than enough of an impact. The next president should be able to appoint whoever they want even though that will take around a years time. I don't know who should replace Scalia but i think it should be someone more neutral to make the best decision for the tie breakers, and not just base it off of Democratic or Republican votes. From this article I learned more about the different parties within the justice and that they existed.
ReplyDeleteI do see both sides and how it will have an impact on either one. I don't think either option is totally the wrong one and i think that either way it will cause a problem. If it were up to me i would choose someone that is less biased toward either party or just leave it up to the next president.
-Logan Braun (hour 1)
The article, 'Apple Fights Order To Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone', discusses whether the FBI should be allowed to order Apple to "unlock" the iPhone of Syed Farook and his wife, who murdered 14 individuals in a shooting. The FBI is investigating what led to this tragic occurrence. Apple is resistant to the order by the FBI due to its stance on protection of privacy for the consumer. Apon referencing the article from ABC News, Apple states "It would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks." This explains that if one iPhone is "unlocked" the result would be accessed to the private information of many costumers. Becuase of this situation, there has been many conflicts whether Apple is making the right decision. Although FBI continues to order Apple to "unlock" the phone, Apple will still refuse due to its loyalty and privacy to customers. Alex Abdo, a staff lawyer for the American Civil Liberty Union's privacy and technology states, "Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers". No matter the decision that will be made,there will be people against either one.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I strongly agree with both sides of the situation. On one side, we could have a much clearer understanding of why the two attackers decided to carry out their plan. Perhaps by finding out this information, we could eliminate future attacks. On the other hand, I am an iPhone user and I am a major fan on the topic of phone privacy. I dont know about you, but I would like to keep my personal information private. I see both situations being a positive or negative impact on our society. I hope that the decision that will be made will impact the United States for the better.
-Nicole Orton (Hour 1)
I decided to read the article 'Apple fights to unlock San Bernardino gunman's iPhone'. This article talked about the killings of 14 people and injuring of 17 others. The reason this article is so highly regarded, is the fact that Apple will not help the FBI in unlocking an iPhone used by on of the two men who did this shooting. Timothy Cook, the chief executive of Apple stated “The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe". Apple is still fighting the FBI in cases of unlocking Apple products for them to use in case of investigations.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very educational. I was able to learn more about what happened in San Bernardino and the rights that major producers have. In my opinion though, I have to agree with Apple not wanting to open the IPhone. Apple ensures the privacy of users, so if they would of unlocked the iPhone, then that shows all consumers they can do whatever they want to your product.
Luke Ranfranz (hour 1)
While reading the article "Apple Fights to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's iPhone", I learned that the government ordered Apple to decrypt its own product, in an attempt to help convict one of the attackers of the San Bernardino massacre. Since the FBI was unable to access the data on its own, it asked for assistance via a court order from Apple. Apple is resisting because it wants to protect the privacy of its customers and believes the government is invading the public's privacy. According to the article, "Mr. Cook, the chief executive at Apple, responded Wednesday morning with a blistering, 1,100-word letter to Apple customers, warning of the “chilling” breach of privacy posed by the government’s demands. He maintained that the order would effectively require it to create a “backdoor” to get around its own safeguards, and Apple vowed to appeal the ruling by next week." It is possible there will be new legislation in congress to address the specifics of this case and make laws that require tougher decryption requirements. The legal issues are complicated and constitutional rights could be affected.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides of this argument. I personally am somewhat undecided because I would be willing to sacrifice some of my privacy for the benefit of safety. However, if the government passes laws to invade our privacy at their command, we as a society lose a little bit of our freedom. On the other hand, since lives were lost and Mr. Farook, one of the confirmed attackers, is suspected to have terrorist ties, I believe the government has the right to do everything in its power to protect the safety of our country and its citizens.
Mikaela Potaracke (Hour 5)
In an article from The New York times on February 17, 2016 entitled “Apple fights order to unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone discusses a debate on how The Company Apple refuses to decrypt their software to allow the FBI to locate the Gunman. From this heated discussion I did manage to pull from this one was even if Apple helped the FBI Decrypt the IPhone data it would’ve not only cause issues for the company to maintain the Privacy for their customers. However The Privacy of their customers would be exposed to the worse of having other hackers from different countries invade their privacy as well. I feel like even if they were trying to find him as well, I would be a little unsatisfied if they were invading my privacy as well, unless if they ask me nicely first for that purpose
ReplyDeleteI do give a lot of credit to apple of not encrypting their own software even though they were being requested by the FBI, because even if they did encrypt it, it would’ve caused a lot of concerns of what stranger is digging into your phone data. If that were to happen it would’ve lead to building a different software and it could take a few years to re-make it. It amazes me of how many hackers we have these days especially with all the technical capability we these days. All I can say about it is that we will always be at risk of being hacked into no matter what which is the reason why we have the Security protections on our Phones anyway.
Phillip Del Vecchio
'The Next Flint' is an article that contains a substantial amount of information concerning not just what happened in Flint, but it also addresses the national implications brought about by the incident. There are a number of things that I learned from the article. First and foremost, I learned that America's water infrastructure is in dire need of repair, and in order to make such repairs, an investment estimated around $1 trillion or more nationwide will be needed over the next 25 years. Secondly, I learned that impoverished cities, like Flint, are especially susceptible to these infrastructure issues. For instance, if such a city needs to make improvements, more often than not the improvements are just neglected because the cities' tax base isn't large enough to pay for such expenditures. Lastly, I've learned that the federal government isn't optimizing its budget towards other cities' infrastructure needs. In fact, "The federal government has ratcheted down its investments in water infrastructure by more than 80 percent since 1980." As a result, I've learned that Flint might only be the first of many cities yet to come to experience disaster.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the article came across as somewhat of a shock to me. Although I was aware that Flint was experiencing problems, what I didn't know was that other cities, like Yeadon for example, are also suffering problems regarding aging infrastructure. On top of that, the federal government isn't obligated to provide relief to such cities which is something I found surprising. The cities are almost completely dependent upon the tax revenue that they generate, which of course only incites problems. The article came across to me as a red flag, and I hope what happened in Flint will spark positive change nationwide as a result.
Spencer Tomasek (Hour 1)
In the article "Apple fights order to unlock San Bernardino Gunman's iphone" I learned that two terrorist attackers killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California in December. The FBI wanted Apple to unlock one of the iphones that was used by one of the attackers, but Apple would not agree due to security reasons. The article states, "the invasive steps it says are being demanded and the brutality of the San Bernardino attacks." It's only a rare case like this one that the government would ask a company to decrypt its own product. If the FBI was able to access the attackers phone, they could possibly get a lot of information they still need. For example, the incentive of the attack or if anyone else was involved. The Justice department stated, "It is unfortunate that Apple continues to refuse to assist the department in obtaining access to the phone of one of the terrorists involved in a major terror attack on US soil." Apple could help another one of these terrorist attacks from happening, but is choosing not to. I understand that Apple just wants to ensure the safety and privacy of all other consumers, but they could really help the FBI if they decide to unlock the ihpone.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, as an iphone user its helpful to know that my information is protected but at the same time it wasn't fair for all of those innocent people to die. For this reason, I think that Apple should be obligated to help the FBI and give them the information needed to possibly stop another terrorist attack from happening. The government is only asking for one iphone to be unlocked, and considering it belonged to a man who killed several people, I don't think it's asking too much from Apple.
Alicia Ziegler (hour 1)
Last year, the San Bernardinho attack was one of the deadliest terrorist attacks to happen since 9/11. In the article "Apple fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's Iphone", their are 2 sides to this argument. The FBI wants Apple to unlock the shooter's Iphone to check for any information he might have for future terrorist attacks or any affiliates he might have that are either here in the U.S. or over seas. Apple believes they shouldn't unlock the phone due to them having to make a whole new software to unlock it and they feel it would be morally wrong due to the government wanting to unlock more items of Apples or in a worse case scenario some sort of hackers could get into the private information of hundreds of millions of Apple users. More and more people are getting their own take on this situation such as the Justice department who said "It is unfortunate that Apple continues to refuse to assist the department in obtaining access to the phone of one of the terrorists involved in a major terror attack on U.S. soil" and Alex Abdo who is staff lawyer for the ACLU privacy and technology section who believes "Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers".
ReplyDeleteI personally believe Apple should have the right to deny the government of hacking into the phone for their own personal morals and securing the information of millions. I can understand the government stance on knowing the information from this horrible human being but i do believe they can somehow help the government in some way and find some sort of compromise soon so they can deal with other issues in their own worlds. - Isaac Salex(hour 5).
"Apple fights order to unlock San Bernardino Gunman's iphone" two terrorist attackers killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California in December and that The FBI wants Apple to unlock the phone of one of the gunman but they are refusing to do so. Apple wants to ensure security and privacy to its costumers which is why they don't want to unlock the man's ihpone. Alex Abdo stated, “Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers." I disagree with this considering that Apple is only disgareeing to help the FBI so that their costumers don't get upset about privacy issues. If Apple would just choose to unlock the iphone for the government, they could help prevent future terrorist attacks from happening and also find out why the two people made the attack and if anyone else was involved.
ReplyDeletein my opinion, its wrong of apple for not unlocking the phone to help the FBI and i think if apple was offered money they would unlock the phone.
Dylan King hr 1
In the article, “The Next Flint,” author Jake Blumgart discusses the entirely preventable tragedy that has befallen Flint, Michigan and Yeadon Pennsylvania, among other small cities and suburbs across America. Many of these cities have outdated water systems which are causing lead and other contaminants to leak into their drinking water. According to a CNN article, “How Tap Water Became Toxic in Flint, Michigan,” “adding (an anti-corrosive agent) would have cost about $100 a day and experts say 90% of the problems with Flint’s water would have been avoided.” However, the governor wanted to avoid spending money as much as possible, and therefore ignored Flint’s contamination problems until a doctor provided evidence that the lead levels were causing serious damage in the area’s children. With low-income populations and increasing poverty rates due to mass emigration from the cities after the decline of industrial-related jobs, these cities are unable to bring in adequate taxes to fix these problems now that they have been ignored for so long.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this never should have happened in Flint in the first place, and should be able to be avoided in other cities as well. In order for this problem to be avoided, city and state officials need to catch and fix contamination problems when they begin, instead of letting them get to dangerous levels before addressing them. City officials also need to create a more equal distribution of wealth between major cities and their suburbs in order to fund these major projects that will increase the quality of living for all residents. At this point, Flint and Yeadon will likely need outside financial help if they are going to recover from this crisis, which I think will be difficult to do. I am very surprised that this problem went on for over a year and a half before action was taken to try to solve it, and I hope that other cities learn from Flint’s mistakes.
Natalia Kaliszewski (hour 1)
Within The New York Times’ technology section article “Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone”, Eric Lichtblau and Katie Bennerfeb inform the general public on a groundbreaking technological legal dispute between globally renowned technology company Apple and two U.S. government agencies (President Obama’s intelligence cabinet and the Federal Bureau of Investigation). I learned that relations have been tense between lawyers for the Obama administration and Apple for over two months now due to a technological case conflict behind close doors. The F.B.I. wants Apple to help “unlock” an iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December, but Apple is resisting. Apple CEO Tim Cook strongly believes in the privacy that his customers are promised when purchasing his company’s products. The U.S. government agencies are trying to persuade Apple that this specific case should induce an exception to their stingy privacy policies due to the benefits of “unlocking” the iPhone. The question of technological privacy has made national attention in the last five years; peaking when former N.S.A. contractor Edward Snowden exposed hushed flaws and privacy gaps within the federal government's ability to tap into technological devices. The conflict at hand spiraled into even further complexity when Apple told the U.S. Governments agencies that there isn't a device or software that exists that would “unlock” this specific iPhone. This means that Apple would have to create a device or software solely for the purpose of satisfing the F.B.I. for this case. Lichtblau and Bennerfeb concluded that, “There is no debate that, when armed with a court order, the government can get text messages and other data stored in plain text. Far less certain was whether the government could use a court order to force a company to write software or redesign its system to decode encrypted data”. The conflict between these two remains tense and unresolved.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I see both sides of the matter, I believe that Apple should find a way to extract all the useful information it can out of that iPhone and hand it over to the U.S. government. There have been 14 innocent lives lost because of these men, and this iPhone may hold significant clues to their allies with similar terroristic beliefs and therefore could lead the F.B.I. to stop future attacks such as this one along along with giving clear evidence on the crime at hand. Ultimately, I believe these men gave up their rights to privacy once they committed high acts of treason and terrorism.
Isaac Lamppa (hour 1)
In the article "Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone”, Apple is fighting the government's order for them to unlock the phone.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the issue with apple acessing this particular phone, seeing as how the owner is dead and all, but I do see thier perspective- to a point. The idea that the goverment could possibly start accessing cell phones at random is a little unnerving. But in this type of case I don't see the problem.
A: the owner is dead and undeniably guilty of mass murder.
B: there is a court order and a justified reason to investgate.
C: the government is not asking to spy on random people, they are doing this out in the open, very officially.
Why couldn't Apple specify that the government can only hack into the phones with a high level court order, and only for investigations of crimes that have the possibility of being a threat to national security? As long as that's all they would do, I don't see the problem.
Anna Rehbein
ReplyDeleteThe confrontation between Apple and the FBI over unlocking the theorist Iphone is a heated debate. I learned In the article “San Bernardino Shooting Kills at Least 14; Two Suspects Are Dead” Published December 2nd 2015, talk about the Shooting in San Bernardo, California. A heavily armed man and woman terrorized that city leaving 14 people dead and 17 others wounded at a social services center. Then later leading the police on a wild goose chase, with the end results of the two suspects dead. This chaos was characterized as being “the attackers carried out the nation’s worst mass shooting since the assault on an elementary school in Newtown, Conn, nearly three years ago.” Stated in the article listed above. The suspects Syed Rizwan Farook 28 and Tashfeen Malik 29 were husband and wife. They had a 6 month year old daughter. This is not the first time a phone company has been order to disrupt their privacy they have to protect there customer. Since Apple take pride over their profile off privacy. Due to the fact that the FBI hasn’t been able to get the IPhone of Syed to open. Apple responded back to the governments stating that the Apple would have to make a backdoor to even get around their own safeguard protections. This a very hard topic to choose to between due to the fact not even Apple has a easy way to access the phone and its contents.
I believe is some ways this good. If does unlock the phone what hackers will be able to access other people’s phones and private matter. If Apple was to open this phone would the FBI also want the rest of the phones they have in custody unlocked to, to help solve other cases. I believe the FBI can always find what they need in other ways. Asking Apple to unlock a phone is breaking apples privacy that they stand by. Even though apple may be able to make the software doesn’t mean they should. They FBI I believe need to step and realize what all can be effected by Apple if they were to make this software they are asking for.
Apple and the F.B.I. are currently in a dispute about how much power the F.B.I. and government actually has, and what the constitution restricts them to. This case is a result of the terrorist attack that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California in December. The F.B.I. argues that this is a matter of national security and is requesting that Apple creates a “Backdoor” to every iPhone for the government to access. Without Apples support, they will not be able to access the terrorists’ Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone and prevent any other potential terrorist with an iPhone from an attack. Apples argument is that this is a violation of the constitution and every Americans rights and freedom and responded to the F.B.I. by sending a “1,100-word letter to Apple customers, warning of the ‘chilling’ breach of privacy posed by the government’s demands.”
ReplyDeleteMy opinion on this topic is that Apple and the F.B.I. should meet somewhere in the middle. I believe that Apple should support the F.B.I. into opening this individual’s iPhone without compromising the security of every other iPhone user. As of today, an article by YourNewsWire states that “FBI Wins Lawsuit Forcing Apple To Install Spyware On iPhone Devices.” Even though the F.B.I. won for now, Apple has not stepped down yet and continues to fight this ruling.
-Noah Peskey
I have learned President Barack Obama is planning to close Guantanamo Bay, but first he has to show congress his plan and it needs to be approved. President Obama could you use executive power in order to close the prison, but when ask about President Obama he said "I'm not an if-then guy," according to the Huffington Post on January 10, 2016. Also another thing I learned is that if President Obama did close the prison the U.S could save a good amount of money, "Congress spent $1.42 billion on Guantanamo when all Guantanamo detainees could have been held in existing U.S. prisons for a cost of $29.9 million." According to Think progress website.
ReplyDeleteMy Opinion on this topic is that we should close down Guantanamo bay in order to save a lot of money in the future. First reason why United States should close down Guantanamo Bay is that its not in the u.s.a which make us pay a lot more for the shipping of what is need. Also another key thing is we don't have direct supervision on the prisoner and if we had the prison in U.S we wouldn't have this problem. Last thing is it would makes me feel kind of scared to have all those prisoner transferred to the U.S from another country a lot of things could go wrong.
-Khalid Mohamed
With regards to the article, "Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's iPhone," I learned that the F.B.I wants permission from apple to "unlock" one of the two shooters who was involved in the San Bernardino terrorist attack iPhone. In order for Apple to "unlock" the iPhone, they would need to weaken their encryption by rewriting it. Also by letting the government access the iPhone, the action itself would be in violation of Apple's customer's rights to their own privacy. There are obviously two sides arguing against each other. The side who supports the F.B.I's decision says that unlocking the phone may help us, as in the United States, find out more ways to prevent terrorist attacks, and may even provide crucial information on the terrorist group itself. The Justice Department also supports the government by saying, "It is unfortunate that Apple continues to refuse to assist the department in obtaining access to the phone of one of the terrorists involved in a major terror attack on U.S. soil." However the opposing side says that Apple should keep their word to their customers on the subject of their customers security and own privacy. A staff lawyer for the American Civil Liberty Union's privacy, Alex Abdo even said, "Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers."
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I understand both sides. I side with the government because I feel that if they can get access into the gunman's iPhone, they may find very valuable information that may help us within the subject of terrorism. However, I also side with Apple, because the U.S. is supposed to allow us to have the freedom of having our own privacy about our personal information and knowing that, that information is secure, especially if the information is being held within a company. But, my overall opinion is that everyone should have their own privacy, but when it comes down to the security and safety of our own country, we may have to take that extra step, such as unlocking a terrorist's iPhone, to ensure that the people within the country, and the country itself is safe.
-Kim Nguyen (Hour 1)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn the Apple article, I have learned that personal freedoms go out the window as soon as the word "terrorist" come into play.After 9/11, the Patriot Act came into play stating that if we suspected you were a terrorist, you are no longer a citizen of the United States. All of your civil liberties would be destroyed. There is no reason why Apple should have to hand over the unlocked phones.According to Apple's most recent statement, "Apple condemns the FBI's request as an unprecedented expansion of government power that would endanger the privacy of Apple users" it can clearly be seen that apple cares about its civilians privacy. It continues on explaing that a code is used to break into the phones which is a serious risk if someone were to get their hands on it. "Given the millions of iPhones in use and the value of the data on them, criminals, terrorists, and hackers will no doubt view the code as a major prize and can be expected to go to considerable lengths to steal it, risking the security, safety, and privacy of customers whose lives are chronicled on their phones."Given the millions of iPhones in use and the value of the data on them, criminals, terrorists, and hackers will no doubt view the code as a major prize and can be expected to go to considerable lengths to steal it, risking the security, safety, and privacy of customers whose lives are chronicled on their phones."
ReplyDeleteApple should not be forced into complying with the FEDS. They are looking out for the populatuion by not using the code to break into these phones and creating a massive target for hackers. Why doesnt the FBI just go talk to the NSA? Lord knows they are great at looking into peoples personal lives...
Hunter Larson Hour 1
in the article titled "Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's iPhone,"i learned that there is a dispute between the FBI and the apple company, due to a recent shooting , one of the murderer's cellphone was found and the FBI is eager to unlock ,and in order for Apple to "unlock" the iPhone, they would need to weaken their encryption by rewriting it. And by letting the government access the iPhone. without apples support they the government cannot access sayid's phone. and the apple company has been disagreeing to do in order to maintain their customers privacy.
ReplyDeleteI understand both sides of the story but personally i think Apple should not release their customers information. It would lead to more trust issues and problems and they shouldn't be forced to do so by the government. and the shouldn't release their customers information this would save a lot of lives.
by: zamzam guled
In Article 5 Obama Takes Last Chance to Close Guantanamo Bay, I've learned that Obama pledged during the 2008 presidential election campaign that he would close the military prison, which housed foreign terrorism suspects after the Sept. 11, 2011, attacks on the United States. Terrorists use Guantanamo as propaganda to recruit, and maintaining it harms U.S. national security. The plan has three elements beyond closing the prison, more detainees will be safely transferred, reviewing the threat posed by detainees who are not eligible for transfer, and identifying those eligible for military trials.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe they should close Guantanamo Bay. By what I've read, the prisoners are degraded and abused. Nobody should have to go through such suffering and pain, its pure sadness and I would hate to see anyone go through the things they did to these prisoners. The prisoners have no way to prove their innocence, under the Constitution, every prisoner in U.S. custody has the right to legal representation and to due process a trial. These prisoners have no rights to argue their appeals in U.S. courts. Closing Guantanamo is not about bowing to human rights concerns or even to the law. We must close it as a signal to the world that, even in the face of danger, the United States remains true to its values. Closing Guantanamo is a pledge of allegiance to the American past and to the American future. - Alan Ke
In this article written by Eric Lichtblau & Katie Benner on February, 17 2016 following a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California killing 14 people & leaving more injured. The government wants Apple to create a way for them to bypass the security on this particular iPhone, so they can retrieve the information leading to the attack but Apple is refusing. I learned that the reason behind that is because if Apple was to unlock that ONE phone, they would have to unlock ALL phones because of how the software encryption is set up & iPhone users would not have the security & privacy that is needed on their devices. Apple could find a way that will help FBI in some type of way.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Apple should be able to retrieve the data from that particular phone only without allowing anyone else to get in contact with the "key" to open the version of iOS. But then again as the government should know a good hacker should be able to unlock an iPhone. I think the government needs to be more up to date on the whole technology thing.
-Trell Johnson
In this article 1, was about the government trying to unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist or gunman. The government could not unlock the phone because apple refused to give up the privacy of their customer. President Obama decided not to move on to the purposed legislation and allowed apple to maintain that privacy. I learned never put anything on your phone that you don't want the government to see. Wesley Oldendorf
ReplyDeleteApple really needs to stick to their guns because then they will have to change their whole privacy system. Additionally, people won't have their personal information taken by the government which really is a violation of the first amendment. The article clearly states
DeleteThe article clearly states that apple should not disclose their privacy and that people need their privacy regardless of what they do. We have become a society that big brother is always watching and we need to make sure that our first amendment is maintained. Wesley Oldendorf
DeleteIn article 1, the FBI wanted apple to decrypt its own iPhone product to find out who the San Bernardino shooter was in contact with. However, Apple refuses to acknowledge the government's request. Apple believes that by decrypting its product this will be in violation of privacy laws that our country was founded on. I learned that apple will continue to fight the government on this issue and I am very happy because I own an iPhone!- River Johannsen
ReplyDeleteIn article 1, the FBI requested that Apple unlock a phone owned by one of the two shooters in the San Bernardino California shooting that took place in December. Apple refused to tap into the phone due to service agreements and basic rights to privacy. I agree with what Apple decided because even though the shooter was in the wrong, it doesn't the government right to invade his privacy. - Michael Keniso, Hour 5
ReplyDeleteThe article “Obama takes last chance to close Guantanamo Bay” Gregory Korte and Tom Vanden Brook discuss Barack Obama’s wishes to move the terrorist detainees of Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Guantanamo Bay is a U.S. military base in the south east region of Cuba; its detention facility has been open since 2002 under President George W. Bush in response of 911. The information that I found most shocking came from the overall cost of the prison. The article states that it cost about four million dollars per detainee and a grand total of four hundred and fifty-five million dollars to run the prison. I also found that by moving the inmates to alternative prisons could help to save roughly sixty-five to eighty-five million dollars a year. Some other statistics that I found shocking is the amount of inmates and how that number has plummeted since it first opened in 2002. When it opened in 2002 the facility held just over six hundred detainees and peaked in 2004 at six hundred and seventy. Since then that number has dropped drastically all the way down to ninety-one inmates in 2016. What I find even more shocking that in the past 15 years both the Republican and Democrat parties have, for the most part, agreed on lowering or totally eliminating the number of inmates Guantanamo Bay detention facility, as George W. Bush, a Republican, is responsible for the release of 532 prisoners and Barack Obama, a Democrat, is responsible for the release 151 prisoners.
ReplyDeleteThe prison in Guantanamo Bay is an issue, and is an issue that both political parties have acknowledged. I believe that the prisoners should be moved due to the simple fact that if it costs significantly less to hold these inmates in a just as secure prison somewhere else, then it should be done.
-Caleb Gee
What I've learned from the article titled " Apple Fights Order To Unlocked San Bernardino Gunman's iPhone" is that in December 2015 two terrorist gunmen shot and killed 14 innocent people. The F.B.I. wanted Apple to unlock the iPhone used by one of the shooters, but Apple denied. The F.B.I. then put it in the hands of a federal judge to order Apple to " bypass security functions on the phone". Their excuse for not unlocking the phone is because it violates customer privacy and they fear that if they make a new software, hackers will be able to hack it and retrieve others information. The U.S government is trying to persuade apple, saying that it's a special case and that they should do it because of the circumstances. Mr. Cook, the chief executive at Apple responded to the situation with a 1,100 word letter to Apple customers. In his letter he stated that the order would " effectively require it to create a "backdoor" to get around it's own safeguards" and vowed to appeal the ruling by next week.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if Apple is interfering with a federal investigation by refusing to unlock the phone. The phone was used by a criminal who took several people's lives, and by Apple not wanting to comply with the F.B.I's demands is selfish and could possible be putting people lives at risk - in my opinion. Nothing but good can come from the information on the phone, it could possibly stop another attack from happening and spare many lives. Apple trying to protect a terrorist in an attempt to protect ones privacy is ridiculous. They should assist in this investigation simply because it's the right thing to do.
~ Kierra - 5th hour
In the article "Justice Antonin Scalia's Death Quickly Sparks a Political Debate" I learned that the supreme court is composed of 9 justices. Prior to Scalia's death the majority was conservative, which is what makes the next Justice so important-because he/she will determine the majority. Scalia served for nearly 30 years dating back to the Reagan administration. Candidates running for president have been all over this topic. Republican Senator Marco Rubio said “I do not believe the President should appoint someone, Obama will ram down our throat a liberal justice” while Hillary Clinton believes that it is Obama's job to appoint the next justice because he is President until January 20th 2017 whether they like it or not.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I believe President Obama should appoint the next Justice whether it be a liberal or conservative. It is up to the acting President to do so. Article II of the Constitution states that "...he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States..." The Republican held Senate should not be able to say that they will not even consider a possible justice that Obama wants to appoint. They should collaborate and come to a consensus on who the next Supreme Court Justice should be.
Jay Lebeck (Hour 5)
In the article "Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone" By Eric Lichyblau and Katie Benner published Feb. 17, 2016, people supporting Apple's decision to not unlock Syed Rizwan Farook's phone are absolutely ridiculous. Knowing that they can help in a federal murder case involving 14 people killed by terrorists and still disagreeing with the F.B.I. to unlock the phone makes no rational sense. The F.B.I. should have the right to force Apple's security tech group to unlock his phone. If Apple just agreed to help the F.B.I. with the case, they would be praised for helping the F.B.I. catch a serial killer! Plus right after all the evidence is gathered needed to seal the case, Apple can secure phones again. People are going to think they can get away violent crimes because the F.B.I. can't do anything to unlock a phone which puts citizens in danger of irrational and dangerous people. “It is unfortunate,” the department said in a statement, “that Apple continues to refuse to assist the department in obtaining access to the phone of one of the terrorists involved in a major terror attack on U.S. soil." Our government will look soft and easily pushed over if the F.B.I. doesn't get into his phone. Apple thinks they can control cases like this is absolutely ridiculous. "San Bernardino Shooting Kills at Least 14; Two Suspects Are Dead" by Adam Nagourney, Ian Lovett and Richard Pérez-Peña DEC. 2, 2015 also makes a very good point on how serious this case is and what happened during the massacre really bring in perspective the seriousness of this case.
ReplyDeleteApple doesn't care which is borderline accomplice to murder because they are purposly withholding evidence from a federal case. The loved ones of the 14 people that were massacred have the right to see justice, not some all powerful compony that is withholding evidence. A crime with an outcome of 14 innocent peoples death and helping the F.B.I. to further continue their investigation doesn't mean a thing to the people at Apple, this makes me feel extremely angry.
Hannah Johnsrud Hour 1
After reading USA today’s article “ Obama takes last chance to close Guantanamo Bay” I have learned that Barack Obama has been plotting a plan to bring detainees from Guantanamo Bay into the United States. I learned that this is a US naval base located in eastern Cuba and it holds members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Since the president's election in 2009 numbers of detainees were around 242 and that number shrank to 91 due to releases and deaths. For each prisoner, it costs the US 4 million dollars. Obama wants to move prisoners into the states because it is more cost efficient and to strengthen our national security.The administration in recent months came up with 13 new potential U.S. locations, seven prison facilities in Colorado, South Carolina and Kansas, and six others on military bases. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest commented “ And we certainly would like to work with the Congress to make those alternatives a reality because we know that those alternatives don't weaken our national security. In fact, they strengthen it. They enhance it.”
ReplyDeleteMy take back from this article is that I would like to see the terrorist detainees stay where they are. It caught my attention when I read Fox News article “Obama presents plan to close Guantanamo, move detainees to US.” That the congress also has worries about possible attacks on the US. They quoted Those members and others in the GOP-controlled Congress argue that such a facility poses a national security risk, particularly a terror attack -- concerns that Obama brushed aside in Tuesday's opening remarks. McCain stated “a major chance to convince the Congress and the American people that he has a responsible plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.” It makes me think that Obama says he has plans for our country but will wait 7 years to bring it up again that he wants to take risky prisoners into our country risking our security. I believe if closing Guantanamo Bay was important Obama would of done it a long time ago. This shows his lack of assurance on important cases such as this one. I think moving these detainees into our country would put us at risk for possible terror attacks. Since the numbers of prisoners have gone down in the past years the price isn't going to rise. I think we should keep Guantanamo Bay open. The president doesn't give us enough reassurance about this being a good decision along with his lack of taking this seriously, as said by John McCain “After years of rhetoric, the president has still yet to say how and where he will house both current and future detainees, including those his administration has deemed as too dangerous to release.” Chelsey Oeltjen
After reading the article "Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's Iphone" I learned that this isn't the first time a technology company has had to decrypt its own product. I tried looking up articles on other technology companies who had to decrypt their own product but could find nothing.
ReplyDeletein my opinion, I don't have any concern with my privacy (I own an iphone) as this is only one phone that they are concerned with it should not effect my phone privacy in anyway. I do however think apple should unlock the phone because it may hold other information possibly regarding future terrorist attacks.
-nate b hour 5
In the article “Apple Fights to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iphone” I learned about the killings in San Bernardino, California and how the FBI wanted Apple to unlock one of the shooters phones that was found.The FBI is now asking Apple to make a back door for the government on all Apple devices so they can get into their secure devices without having to go through this process. One of the reasons Apple does not want to make the back door is because they find it an invasion of privacy for there customers also they find it ironic as will be stated in this quote “”The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe,” Mr. Cook said”. Basically they're saying if they do this then what was the point of making such a strong encryption to that protected iPhone users they might as well just not put any security. The FBI’s reason i believe for doing this is just so that they can find people that have done things like killed 14 people or kidnap a child. Some people may be scared that the government might abuse this power and that is why some are fighting against it.
ReplyDeleteThis article made me feel torn between having my personal information on my phone safe vs having the FBI have unlimited access to everything i do on my phone, but i think i would just let the FBI have a back door into my phone because it seems to me that it could help stop a lot of crimes even if it does make the encryption on the iPhone weaker. I personally have nothing to hide on any device so it doesn't really affect me that much besides having the weird feeling that someone could see everything on it but the NSA does that any way so does not really matter.
Danny Nelson
In the article “Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone” in The New York Times explains the dispute between Apple and the FBI on whether or not they should unlock Syed Rizwan Farook’s IPhone. Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife attacked a holiday gathering in San Bernardino which resulted in the death of 14 people and 22 injured. The FBI wants to get access to the gunman’s IPhone to search it for information relevant to the attack. Apple refuses to unlock the IPhone because they believe it would be violating their customers’ privacy. Some people believe that if Apple creates a “backdoor” for the government to get access to their phones, it will lead to a slippery slope where people’s information will no longer be private. Others disagree, they claim that the phone may contain important information about the attack: other people involved, other planned attacks, or if they were alone or told to do so by someone in charge of them.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that Apple should allow access to the phone but there must be certain requirements to do so. For a phone, police should need a warrant to search it just like anything else. If they don’t have a reason to search someone’s personal phone they shouldn’t have access to it. In this case however, I believe they have a more than adequate reason to search the gunman’s IPhone.
-Tom Ranfranz
From the article "Apple fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's IPhone" I have learned that Apple phones actually do have enough security that even the top technologist in the FBI can not even unlock it. Apple refuses to unlock the phone due to the fact that it would showcase that there is a possible back door for iPhones. Apple says that they can't do because their software just won't allow them too and that their software's security is too strong to create a back door but the FBI believe Apple is lying so that they won't have to create and showcase a back door. On the other hand, unlocking this very Iphone could save many lives for it might have much evidence for this case and others. For all we know, those attackers could've been apart of a bigger organization that they could find information on that could lead to saving many more lives. Also if a back door is possible it would also help many other investigations. So from my point of view, Apple should make a back door, the lives of humans is more important then the security of an iPhone.
ReplyDelete-Hayy Jadran
In the article titled Obama takes last chance to close Guantanamo from USA today I've learned that the plan to close Guantanamo Bay military prison has been around for his last two terms along with George Bush's terms. The cost to keep it running is extremely high, about 4 million per detainee. There are 91 detainees currently in Guantanamo and over 600 have been released since 2002. President Obama believes that this prison is a threat to US security. I also learned that President Obama has to get approval from congress to shut down this prison or use his executive power. In the USA Today article it stated “There is far too much money that is spent to operate that prison when there are more cost-effective alternatives available” This shows that it is also a good way to save money by shutting this prison down.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this prison should have been shut down years ago because it is inhumane and ineffective. There has been reports of torture being taken place in this prison and psychology tells us time and time again that you will get any answer you want when inflicting pain on someone. The simple fact that this prison system is corrupt and ineffective should be cause enough for us not to spend 455 million dollars just to keep it running.- Najma Hussein Hour 5
After reading, "Obama Takes Last Chance to Close Guantanamo Bay" I learned that after many years of trying to re-locate the Guantanamo Bay terrorists to US soil, Obama would like to give his final request and effort towards the plan. But, we still do not have a place for these terrorists to stay, so having to build a high security prison specifically for terrorists would take an enormous ammount of money. Because Guantanamo Bay is not on US soil, it must be leased, costing the US a lot of money as well. The whole idea is to build a high security prison on US soil for the terrorists to be kept captive and shut down Guantanamo Bay. So far, the ruling on this plan has been denied, do to the fact this it would be far too dangerous to move these prisoners, and untill we have a fool proof plan and a prison for them built, the request will be denied.
ReplyDeletePersonally, i think that moving the prisoners to US soil is a good thing, but until we have a prison built and a 100% perfect plan on getting these highly dangerous people accross the world, the offer should not even be on the table yet. - Jacob Ulrich
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Justice Antonin Scalia’s death quickly sparks political battle”, I learned a little bit more about the Supreme Court and how important each justice is. Also I learned that politicians are arguing a lot over who should decide the new justice. Hilary Clinton’s statement “the President has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote" shows that she thinks that the president should do it now because that’s part of his job. On the other hand, Florida senator Marco Rubio said, "I do not believe the President should appoint someone”. This shows that other people think that the new president should select the justice so that he can shape the country a little bit more to how he likes it. Just hearing all the arguing done by the democrats and republicans has made me realize that this decision will have a huge influence on the future of out country.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s statement "The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away". That is part of the job of the president and it makes no sense to wait it out and “let the people decide” by having the new president pick a new justice. I think it would be best for Obama to appoint someone who is part conservative and part liberal so then neither side is gaining more than the other but no matter what he does he should make up his mind soon.
Brady Meyers
In the article "Obama Takes Last Chance to Close Guantanamo Bay" I learned that President Obama intends to keep his promise of closing Guantanamo Bay but first needs to convince congress to approve it. Guantanamo Bay is costing the U.S. about 455 million dollars each year to operate. With 783 prisoners in 2002 decreasing to just 91 today there is no point in keeping the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. It would cost less in the long run to renovate another maximum security prison then to keep the prisoners at Guantanamo. Many people have supported Obama's view including George Bush the very person who opened the prison, Obama's former running mate, John McCain, also is in favor of closing the prison. The only thing stopping Obama from closing the prison is congress believes the terrorist prisoners should not be allowed on U.S. soil but Obama plans to deport many of the prisoners back to their own country so long as that country shows it can keep those prisoners in prison. Congress is worried if we bring these prisoners to the U.S. there will be even more terrorist attacks on the U.S.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion Guantanamo Bay should have been shut down years ago as it was only opened as a result of 9/11. Now that the dust has settled on 9/11 and there are still a few terrorist attacks here and there they are not significant enough for us to worry about moving the prisoners to the United States. -Hunter Newer
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "apple fights order to unlock I phone" I think that the law should be able to over rule the apple company if it's for the safety for others. If apple does not want to give over the confidentiality for the safety of others then I personally think law enforcement should be able to take the files of the customers who have broken the law and they need phone activity for evidence against them
ReplyDeleteSummer Hutton Hour:5
From the article "Apple Fights Order To Unlocked San Bernardino Gunman's iPhone" I learned in December 2015 two terrorists murdered 14 innocent people with assault rifles. The F.B.I. is trying to force Apple to unlock the iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook. Because Tim Cook refused, the F.B.I. turned to a federal judge to order Apple to bypass security functions on the phone. The reasoning for not unlocking the phone is because it violates customer privacy. Also, Tim Cook fears that if they make a new software to unlock the phone hackers will be able to hack it. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. have the White House’s “full support,” said Josh Earnest. Cook responded with a 1,100 word letter to Apple customers composed of why its wrong to access a users phone.
ReplyDeleteI feel Apple has its own right to refuse to unlock the phone. By unlocking the phone I feel as if people will not trust Apple even though the phone was used in a crime.
Drew Becker hour 1
For Guantanamo Bay i feel like that they should keep it closed if terrorist use Guantanamo Bay as "propaganda to recruit and maintaining it harms U.S national security". So we should move prisoners to a new location and keep the prisoners really secured. Also what they do to the prisoners how they beat them and other things they do as well i feel is wrong and that they have innocent prisoners in the prison as well. Anid.Vele
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Apple Fight Order To Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone” last December two terrorist opened fire killing 14 unarmed civilians in San Bernardino, CA. The F.B.I requested that Apple unlock the iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook who is thought to have organized this attack. But Tim Cook the CEO of Apple refused to unlock the iPhone. The F.B.I is looking for help from a federal judge to order Tim Cook and his employees to bypass the security function on Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone. The reason Apple won’t bypass the security code is because it “violates customer privacy”. Another reason Tim Cook won’t have his team of engineers re write the security code soft wear is the fear that it will be easier for hackers to hack in and steal your person information. The White House is giving Apple, and the Justice Department its “Full support” said Josh Earnest a white house person. Apples CEO Tim Cook sent apple users a 1,100 word letter informing customers that they will not be re writing the security code soft wear, and how it is wrong for the government to have access to your iPhone.
ReplyDeleteI personally support Tim Cook and apple 100% when it comes to re writing the code making it easier for the F.B.I to hack into your phone, but with that being said I think Apple and it lawyers should sit down with the F.B.I and try to meat somewhere in the middle. For example apple only unlock and IPhone if it is involved in a shooting, or mass terrorist attack.- Kaleb Ihde