More Subjects
QEP Assignment Three
Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees
QEP Assignment Three
A dispute over customers’ rights and privacy between the technology companies and law enforcement agencies is still going on. Several cases are there in which law enforcement agencies require to access the information of the criminal through his or her cell phone yet the cell phone companies are denying to give them access. The reason for denying access to customers’ phones is due to their rights and privacy that they are entitled to, because of laws made by the US government (Askin, 1997). Recently, a similar case happened where FBI authorities were demanding access to the criminal’s cell phone. However, the Apple Company denied providing access owing to the laws regarding customer’s safety and privacy. Additionally, providing open access to the FBI may also raise concerns of other users as well as their data is also not secure. This will further destroy the company’s reputation and customers can sue the company for violation of their privacy. The battle between Apple and FBI continued until with the help of third party intervention, FBI officials were able to access the data. After accessing the data, FBI withdraws their request. This raised questions regarding the rights of people as according to the US constitution, every citizen has the right to privacy as well as, has the right to be free from unjustified publicity. Also, the unlawful intrusion into an individual’s private activities is a violation of privacy and the person violating the law must be held accountable and face a penalty (Nelson, 2007). Both laws stipulate the significance of privacy that every person residing in the US is entitled to. Thus, the violation of privacy done by the FBI in accessing the data of criminals is unjustified.
This case divided people into two groups. According to one group, Apple must not accept the FBI’s request to grant access to the phone while the other was in favour of the FBI. According to them, access to the criminal phone can facilitate in capturing the masterminds behind the attack. However, involving a third party in the middle of the case was highly unethical. FBI wanted Apple to write a software program that can aid them in accessing all the conversation, messages and images details. However, Apple denied and also argued that it is not only a violation of privacy but also a violation of the freedom of speech law (Henkin, 1979). If the case would have been heard in the Supreme Court, then Apple would have won the case. This is because their arguments were entirely based on the laws that are present in the US constitution and if anyone is not following a law then they must be subjected to the penalty. Additionally, involving the third party in the case that is still in the court is also a violation of the law and law is equal for both the law enforcement officials and civilians. According to the Data Protection Act section 55, it is an offense to access the data of any person without their consent and such act is punishable (Cox, 1977). Thus, the FBI cannot hack any person’s account without the consent of a person or a warrant. Additionally, the FBI cannot hack someone’s phone without evidence of any criminal activity. So, in the case mentioned above, FBI had doubts regarding the involvement of a mobile owner in the attack and they did not have any evidence that supports that a person was directly or indirectly involved in the crime. Thus, they cannot compel Apple to provide access and cannot use a third party’s help to hack the mobile phone of a person they think is involved in the attack. Due to all the arguments mentioned above, it is clear that the Supreme Court’s decision would be in favour of Apple.
In addition to the influential aspects related to Apple, there are other instances which the Apple representatives can present in their favour. Being an Apple representative, the first argument that a lawyer can give in the Supreme Court is the right to freedom of speech. According, to the US constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” so compelling a company to write software against their will is subjected to the violation of the law. Additionally, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, “No individual shall be deprived of liberty and property, without a due process”, so Apple is not bound to address the request of FBI professionals to write software. Furthermore, according to the Data Protection Act, any disclosure or misuse of information about an individual is considered as an offence and the offender must face the penalty. Due to this reason, Apple cannot write software that could disclose all the personal information of the customer. Although, in the given case study, a person is criminal yet still, FBI has no solid evidence against him. Thus, without any patent proof that the cell phone belonged to a person who is criminal, Apple is not liable to fulfil the request of the FBI officials. Moreover, Apple has a contract according to which they are responsible for keeping the customer’s data safe. So, providing access to the mobile phone will make them violating their contract. Therefore, compelling Apple to write software in violation of the company’s contract. According to the Act to Protect the Privacy of Online Consumer information, internet service providers are prohibited to disclose or sell the consumers data without their consent (Fernback & Papacharissi, 2007). Consequently, compelling Apple to write software to access all the information that is on the cloud is a violation of the Act to Protect the Privacy of Online Consumer information. Therefore, they cannot write software to facilitate FBI. Also, the FBI cannot use the aid of any third party to hack the iPhone data as it is also against the law. In short, Apple is not bound to write a software or to facilitate FBI by jeopardizing its customer’s privacy.
References
Askin, F. (1997). Free speech, private space, and the constitution. Rutgers LJ, 29, 947.
Cox, M. P. (1977). A Walk Through Section 552 of the Administrative Procedure Act: The Freedom of Information Act; The Privacy Act; and the Government in the Sunshine Act. U. Cin. L. Rev., 46, 969.
Fernback, J., & Papacharissi, Z. (2007). Online privacy as legal safeguard: the relationship among consumer, online portal, and privacy policies. New Media & Society, 9(5), 715-734.
Henkin, L. (1979). Rights: American and human. Colum L. Rev., 79, 405.
Nelson, J. C. (2007). Keynote Addresses: The Right to Privacy. Mont. L. Rev., 68, 257.
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024