- Read the two discussion posts below and respond by extending the discussion by adding new insights, different examples from your experience, or from other sources.
- Apply critical thinking. Agreement, quoting other learners, or repeating the case content will not be counted.
- The response to each post should 100 words each.
#1: The issues presented in this article are something I have had long lengthy discussions with many people about. I am a prior law enforcement officer of twenty years and was a homicide supervisor. Over the many years of cell phone evolution, the access to these devices has changed for law enforcement. I am on both sides of the fence on this issue and I will explain further. Prior to the requirements to obtain search warrants for cell phone access, my investigators would use the data inside of cell phones to solve horrible crimes and gather important intelligence. Obtaining a search warrant for cell phone data was only a minor inconvenience at first until apple made the phones inaccessible. I feel that many crimes today could be averted if law enforcement had access to the data on peopleâ€™s phones. Now on the opposite side of the coin, as a current citizen, I understand the stance of Apple and respect it. Allowing untethered access to peopleâ€™s data would be an invasion of privacy. When we first started accessing phones, we were looking at recent calls, call logs, pictures and text. Today cell phones track everything you do and say. I do not believe the government should have unquestioned access to any device without prior approval. The FBI in this circumstance used a rational model of decision making. They identified the problem of limited access to the Apple phone. They had to think of alternatives when Apple refused to assist in building the software to access the phone. They implemented a temporary solution to the problem by utilizing hackers. After debating this issue from both sides of the fence, I think investigators should be allowed access to cell phone data in extreme cases if it is first presented to a judge. Access to someoneâ€™s data is already possible in other ways, but gaining access to a phones data in an expeditious way can save many people from further dangers.
#2: What is the point of privacy when the damage has been done? Is the death of so many people of terrorism worth the privacy of your emails or phone? It is better to be safe than sorry. I believe our privacy should be protected but when it does come to only terrorism, Apple and other technology companies should comply with the government. I do not think the government has time to go through millions of peopleâ€™s mobile devices to snoop on our personal lives. I understand that it is our right to have privacy, but it could be saving innocent lives to prevent other future attacks. If you do not have anything to hide, then you should not need to worry about your privacy. We need to think of the nationâ€™s safety. I believe the government should be transparent with us. At least we know what they are up to so there are not any surprises. I do not agree with the government spying on us all the time, but if bypassing the encrypted device of a terrorist suspect, then I think it is constitutional. This will hopefully help find informational to prevent any other terror attacks. According to Pilon and Epstein, â€œAs the president said, the process involves some necessary loss of privacy. But it’s trivial, certainly in comparison to the losses that would have arisen if the government had failed to discern the pattern that let it thwart the 2009 New York subway bombing plot by Colorado airport shuttle driver Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-American, who was prosecuted and ultimately pleaded guiltyâ€ (2013). They should go through Najibullahâ€™s personal devices to see if others are involved to prevent another attack like this one.