Debate Rounds (5)
The resolution is resolved: Apple inc. should comply with the current F.B.I. court order demanding access to Syed Rizwan Farook's Iphone
just polling, comment if possibly interested
As the affirmative, our standard for both sides will be the well being of the people.
My first point is that Apple Inc. is an American company.
As a corporation that has benefitted off of the American economy and people, and one which owes its existence to this great nation, Apple Inc. ought to be helping the American government instead of backstabbing it.
My second point is that Apple Inc. refusal to help the American government break into one of the perpetrators encrypted iPhones actually endangers the nations security and the well-being of the American people. This once again is a violation of the value of this debate, which is the well-being of the people, therefore, I am the affirmative should win this debate.
I'll start by noting that my opponent was not supposed to accept this debate. As I said in the opening round, I was just polling. But that's on me for not locking the debate to acceptance, so I'll continue. Second, to Micheal, on debate.org, the first round is only for rules and whatnot so there never supposed to be arguments during that round. But let's continue anyways.
Contention 1 - What is the Investigational value of the phone?
In order for us to decide whether or not Apple should comply with the court order we have to make a cost-benefit analysis: what do we win and what do we lose by complying with the court order? In this contention I'll argue that Syed Farook's Iphone will most likely have no effect on the investigation. If the phone will have no effect on the investigation there is no reason to comply with the court order. If Pro doesn't prove a substantiative reason that unlocking this Iphone is key to solving the investigation, there is no reason to vote for him. This is especially true because pro has full burden of proof. He has the burden of proof becuase he is advocating an action. For example, if Pro said, "we should get a new fridge" he should be required to give a reason, such as "because ours is broken." If his bop is unfulfilled, he shouldn't win the debate, or in other words, if the fridge isn't broken there isn't a reason to buy another one.
One of the first things we should note is Syed Farook's level of planning. He took many measures to cover his tracks and wasn't reckless in anyway. For instance, of Syed Farook's three phones, he destroyed two of them. The ones he destroyed were his personal phones. The one he didn't destroy was his WORK phone, because doing so would be suspicious. The FBI now has this Iphone and wants access to it but it is, of course, locked. Because it was his work phone he wasn't using it for terrorist activities which effectively means there will be NO useful information on it. Even the police agree, just read what Chief Burguan of the San Bernadion police department said:
"I'll be honest with you...there is probably nothing of any value on the phone."
But if this phone is not integral to the case then why is the FBI pressing so hard to get into it? It all comes down to state power and the emergence of a surveillance state in America. The executive branch is using this tragic attack for political and power oreniented ends. The current court order tells Apple to reengineer their software so that the FBI can run an infinite number of passcodes until they guess the correct one. Apple has rightly asserted that this is the equivelant of a backdoor, or a software vulnerability which allows encryption standards to be circumvented. This particular backdoor would give the government unlimited access to all Iphones and even worse, it would set a legal and international precedent that it's OK to turn cooperations into massive surveillance machines.
The White House has publicly stated they are not requesting any software that would allow an all-encompassing backdoor to Iphones but there is simply No Way to create what they want Without create a backdoor. How is Apple supposed create a key that only works on one door, when every other door has the exact same lock? Its simply impossible.
Contention 2: Setting a legal precedent
One thing we must make clear is that Apple has been extremely helpful in assisting the law with not only the San Bernadino shootings, but with other cases as well. Apple has already given the FBI all of the Icloud backup data it could find for Syed's phones and has helped the government with other Iphones in over 80 cases. This time is different however because the government's request will lead to an extreme violation of privacy around the world. Apple is genuinely looking out for the interests of the nation and the entire world here.
If Apple is forced to comply with the court order, the government will use this case to justify forcing other companies to create backdoors into their software. Furthermore, governments like Russia and China are just itching to hear that the US has justified creating backdoors into coorperate software. The United States sets the example for the rest of the world, so whatever we do everyone else will follow. Once the U.S. justifies this type of action, other nations will soon force Apple to do the same in their countries, giving governments like China Access to American information. This case is pivital, there will be a domino effect where losing this battle means allowing backdoors all over the world. It would justify an unlimited amount of surveillance globablly.
But let's say other nations don't follow suit, even then we have the problem of hackers getting access to the break-in software. The skelleton key the government wants will get out and be exploited by both government and individual hackers or terrorists. This means complying with the court order will ironically create and enable crime, terrorism, and surveillance on a massive scale. So let's explore the harms of backdoors.
Contention 3: Cyberterrorism and hacking
Even secret backdoors will be found and exploited for cyberattacks: by Eric Burger, Research Professor of Computer Science at Georgetown University, 2014
"Creating a backdoor introduces the risk that other parties will find the vulnerability, especially when capable adversaries, who are actively seeking security vulnerabilities, know how to leverage such weaknesses. History illustrates that secret backdoors do not remain secret...One example occurred in Greece. Switches came equipped with built-in wiretapping features, intended only for authorized law enforcement agencies. Some unknown attacker made use of these and eavesdrop[ed] on calls from many cell phones — including the Prime Minister of Greece, a hundred high-ranking Greek dignitaries, and an employee of the U.S. Embassy. In essence, a backdoor created to fight crime was used to commit crime."
Backdoors on phones are used for cyberattacks: Connor-Simons, Communications Coordinator at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 2015
"special access in complex systems like smartphones would create vulnerable “single points of failure” that would be particularly attractive targets for hackers, cybercrime groups, and other countries. Any attacker who could break into the system that stores the security credentials would instantly gain access to all of the data, thereby putting potentially millions of users at risk."
Terrorists and criminals will use backdoors on phones to enable catastrophic cyberattacks: Steven Bucci, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2009
"Unless we get cyber crime under control, it will mutate into a very real, very dangerous national security issue with potentially catastrophic ramifications. It would be far better to address it now rather than in the midst of a terrorist incident or campaign of incidents against one of our countries. Terrorism enabled by cyber criminals is our most likely major cyber threat."
Terrorists and cybercriminals could use backdoors on phones to attack critical infrastructure: Thomas Overton, 2015
"hackers could covertly and systematically disable safety systems which would usually protect the generators from desynchronisation events. They send control signals which open and close the generator’s rotating circuit breakers in quick succession, using the inertia of the generator itself to force the phase angle between supply and load out of sync...The result would be a blackout affecting 93 million people in 15 northeastern states and the District of Colombia. many areas, such as New York City, would suffer intermittent blackouts for weeks afterward, resulting in widespread social unrest and disruptions. Economic costs could reach as high as $223 billion, with the overall damage to the U.S. economy as much as $1 trillion in the worst-case scenario.
Now, to weigh.
Voters, it is logical to pick my side on the basis that anything that has contact with a terrorist should thoroughly investigated as any case is. By law, for an American corporation to refuse to comply with the government is not only immoral, but is a sign of treason against our national security.
My opponent's comically short, two paragraph response just sealed his fate in this debate...
Pro makes three outlandish claims in his last round; one is that I failed to meet his "value" or invoke my own, the second is that all impacts have to likely occur in the timeframe of this debate, and the last is that I conceeded his arguments.
On the value: Pro seems to think that writing a one-sentence framework argument is an argument at all. He can't expect a valid response or any consideration from the judges on his framework arguments because there are litterally no warrants that support its validity. He has also conceeded the burden of proof. But the funny part is, I have no problem with his framework and I don't violate it in any way, in fact I uphold it as my own.
Because Pro has BOP it's his obligation to show that Apple's compliance with the court order would Harm People, if he doesn't do that he hasn't given you a reason to vote for him and losses. This is an extension of what I argued in contention one. That means contention one is still up and running. If he doesn't fulfill his burden of proof he loses no matter what.
On timeframe: There are no rules for this match and I don't have to restrain my arguments to those whose impacts are likely to occur during the debating period of this match. All I have to do is show that it's net worse to comply with the court order than to Not comply with it. If I do that I win. I could argue impacts that occur a million years from now if I wanted.
On concessions: I didn't conceede his arguments. This goes back to Pro's inexperience. On DDO the first debating round (R2) is usually for constructives and then rebuttals come after. Pro doesn't refute a single argument I made so if anything, he has just conceeded My arguments. He finally claimed that all of my arguments are speculative but I'd like to point out that I am the Only one in this round who has actually used a source. All of my arguments are backed by cybersecurity experts and Pro's responses are stoundingly uneducated, debate-wise that is.
Now let's go to his own arguments: His first argument is that Apple has a moral obligation to help the American people becuase it owes its existence to it. I agree, that's why Apple shouldn't comply, because complying would actually hurt the American people by causing crime and terrorism.........His second 'argument' is that refusal to break into the encryption "actually endangers the nations security and the well-being". That's litterally it, there is no reason that it does, he just says it does. I think my rebuttal will be very obvious, he has no warrant for this claim and so this claim litterally means nothing and you should defer to my expert proven points.
This debate is now ridiculously simple to evaluate. Pro has the entire burden of proof, meaning if he doesn't prove there is a greater harm to complying with the federal court order to Apple, than Not complying, I autmotically win. Furthermore I agree and meet his value. I want people to be safe from terrorism, crime and the government. The reason copmliance with the court order is bad is becuase it will create backdoor into Apple's encryption softawre which will escape and get into the hands of terrorists and foreign hackers, especially from places like Russia and China. Furthermore, when we set a legal precedent that its OK to poke gigantic holes in the software of companies, other countries follow suit and in our own country we reproduce this effect, esentially turning coorperations into government spy machines. Once backdoors are in every coorperation, in every country and the software is in the hands of criminals, we Will Be Attacked By Terrorists. My authors say that cyber terror is THE single biggest cyber threat and a growing national security issue golabally. All of this could happen just because the government wants to do some investigation on a phone which the police admit will probably give us ZERO leads. My opponent's reponse to these arguments? "these are all pure l speculation and have no impact". Not a single counter argument. This is called Lazy Debating. So I ask, how has Pro outweighed these impacts, how has he even outweighed the RISK of these impacts? The answer is that he hasn't, and for that he easily loses this debate.
My opponent also has the "burden of proof" as well. He must prove that there is no value in the iPhone, when it could be so easily be a key into knowing people like Farook who are out seeking for blood that here in the U.S. If he can do that, he wins.
But since he hasn't done that, you can see the net benefits of examining and investigating this iPhone. You've heard the term "better safe than sorry" this is what I'm taking about.
I think its safe to say that my opponent is a bit inexperienced, but that doesn't mean we should discount his arguments. No, instead we should discount them because they simply don't make sense. My opponent has contended that I lose this debate because I haven't proposed an alternative to his framework, but his framework ("the well being of the people") is broad and I've shown that I meet it. I originally said that we should discount his framework because there are no warrants giving us reasons to accept it, but I really don't know why I would show opposition to it, I completely accept it. Just keep in mind that he hasn't given a single reason that I don't meet, or violate it.
I have shown several harms that would stem out of compliance with the government court order. The first thing I've argued is the worthlessness of the phone in the investigation, this attack was well thought out, and although terrorists are evil, they are not completely stupid. Syed, knew not to use his *government* work phone for terrorists plots. that's why he didn't destroy it like his other two phones. The police chief of San Bernadino, where the terrorist attack happened, even said 'this phone will have ZERO valuable information towards the investigations. Time and time again researchers have found that traditional investigative methods solve terror cases. According to my opponent this means I win the round. He even admitted last round that if I show the phone is useless for the investigation, I win.
Because we know the phone is investigationally useless, we also know that there are ulterior motives for the insistance of the executive to force Apple to alter their software and create a backdoor skelleton key. Primarily, to circumvent the current judicial debates about the right of governments to hack encryption source-code. The major problem is, again, that the U.S. leads the world and once we set this precedent, not only will our government hack all the encryption they can in the name of the "fight against terrorism," but other governments will do the same. This will effectively turn every major coorperation into automatons that supply the surveillance state with informations and violate our fundemental right to privacy. How will that benefit the well-being of the people?
I've also emphasized and proven that the encrytion source-code the government will then have the right to hack, will not stay in their hands. Hacker always get this information, in fact it was but a couple months ago that a 14 year old hacked the F.B.I and got a list of all current F.B.I secret agents. This will ironically enable terrorism and hacker-crime. In fact it will collapse the economy when terrorists blow out our critical infrastructure like power grids, which will cause between $223,000,000,000 - $1,000,000,000,000. We have to ask ourselves, how will that much damage to the economy benefit the well-being of people? This doesn't include the amount of people who will be stranded without a way to call the police when their power goes out and they've fallen and can't get up, or when Ted Bundey is knocking at their door.
But here's how things are going in terms of the debate. My opponent has dropped my arguments about why he and only he has burden of proof. Becuase silence is compliance in the debate world, he has conceeded these arguments. As for the arguments he makes about why I share the burden of proof, I have met them word for word, but either way he litterally gives NO WARRANTS to substantiate them, which makes them absolutely and completely null in this debate. Another crazy argument he makes is that our impacts have to occur within the likely timeframe of this debate, which makes no sense. He gives no reason for this except that I use the word contention which relates to certain forms of debate. But this still isn't a cogent argument because in parlimentary debate, academic policy debate, licoln douglas debate, and any other form of debate we could bring up, the impacts they argue don't likely have to occur in the hour or so in which they take place. Allowing impacts which occur over any length of time allows for a greater evaluation of what will effect the well being of the people and therefore we should allows impacts which occur long-term. He'll have to provide substantiative as to why it harms education, or debate quality to have later impacts when his own framework says otherwise.
But there is one simple reason I'm by far winning this debate right now and that's becuase he doesn't respond to my rebuttal of his points. Because he has the full burden of proof, and becuase silence is compliance, he has already agreed that he is wrong and losses automatically.
I extend all of my conceeded arguments and thank you for taking the time to read. I encourage a vote for pro.
In response to my opponent's argument, or insult (they've become synonymous at this point) I would like to say that my opponent provided no direct evidence as to why the phone has no value. What if Farook forgot to destroy the phone or left it behind for an accomplice? We never know unless we check.
The rest of my opponent's points are just the same old things he introduced in the other rounds. Voters, to be honest all he did was just put a bunch of fancy word together. You really want to talk about the well being of the people? A true patriot, one who actually cared about the well being of the people would make sure that anything potentially being a threat to his (or her's) security would be investigated.
My opponent dropped my point on treason therefore in his own words has conceded to my argument. Please Extend, and thank you.
those were some of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen. Not one of my argument was challenged so I'm just extending out my previous arguments. Voting pro means causing an economic shutdown, cyber crime, and terrorism, in the name of using a phone which the government itself says is useless. I'm the only one who has used sources in the entire debate. its super easy.
Vote For Me
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.