The Instigator
Discodude16
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
minddrag
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should the FBI Make Apple Unlock San Bernardino's IPhone?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
minddrag
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 670 times Debate No: 87058
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Discodude16

Con

The FBI should not make apple develop software to allow access into San Bernardino's IPhone. If apple were to develop this software, it will defeat the purpose of an IPhone passcode lock, as well as the human rights of others.

Human Rights

Now, I know that San Bernardino is dead, so he doesn't have any more rights, in this case, I would say why not, but the reason why Apple shouldn't do this is due to the privacy of others. Even though the FBI said that it was a "one-time gig," that doesn't mean that one person can somehow get ahold of this new software, and copy all of the files, and distribute it to anyone, anywhere. (Sort of like pirating video games.) Therefore, this will allow anyone really to get into anyone's IPhone, and it breaks the right of privacy. So, I am trying to state that they shouldn't do this, due to the concern of one person hitting that Ctrl-C, and spreading it around like a plague.

After the gig

Another problem is what is going to happen if Apple were to give in and make this software. The FBI will probably think "Hey, that's cool" and can potentially make other companies make different software for their products, which can disobey the human rights all over again. For example, you could go and do something suspicious, and the FBI could notice that you use a Microsoft device a lot. So, they could go back to this case, and somehow make Microsoft develop a software, making this go on over again.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
minddrag

Pro

Good Morning to all the readers and my wonderful opponent. Thank you very much for posing a debate on this interesting and heavily evolving topic. Since my opponent was vague on the issue I will provide a copy of the exact order sent to apple by the FBI.

[Provide] the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory (“RAM”) and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (“DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowed the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis. [1]

Now to begin I would like to analyze this court order sent by the FBI to apple. My opponent's first argument was about human rights so I will skip that as it does not pertain to this court order above, but I will go into that later. My opponent stated that if Apple unlocks the phone, the FBI could make other companies unlock their phones, so it would become a regular thing. If you look at the court order above, you will see that in numerous phrases in the court order, it states that this program will be coded specifically for this phone, so it will not be used for any other phone. This refutes the point that my opponent made when he stated “one person can somehow get ahold of this new software, and copy all of the files, and distribute it to anyone, anywhere.”

My opponent also stated that the FBI could use this case to attempt to gain programs from other companies. To first look at this issue there is a quote that perfectly outlines my views on this topic:

“It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let's say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said, ‘Don't make me cut this ribbon because you'll make me cut it many times.” -Bill Gates [2]

If any other company in other fields are required to cooperate with police and the FBI in an investigation why should tech companies not have to? With the evolving technology and security systems of our society today, our security is getting better and better. In terms of this Apple phone it is unbreakable without this software. The San Bernardino shooters are terrorists who killed 14 people and injured 22 others, and are despicable human beings. They were most likely working with other Jihadists in a sleeper cell embedded in the United States. [3] The government of the United States needs to get inside this phone to prevent other deaths and injuries, and to stop the terrorism at its source, so others are not radicalized.

I will now move backwards to a point that I briefly touched on earlier when I talked about the shooters human rights. The information that I have provided above clearly shows that it will not intrude on others human rights and is not going to be distributed so that point is invalid.

Public opinion is also largely on the side of the FBI. Fifty-one percent of Americans say Apple should "unlock" the phone in question, according to findings from a Pew Research study published Monday. Only 38% of Americans say Apple "should not" unlock the phone. [4]

Even iPhone owners believe that Apple should unlock the device in question, with 47% of iPhone-owning Americans saying Apple should unlock the device, compared with 43% of iPhone owners who support Apple's stance. [5]

It is for these reasons that I have stated above that Apple must unlock the San Bernardino's shooters phone.

Sources:
[1]http://blog.trailofbits.com...
[2] http://www.theverge.com...
[3]http://www.cnn.com...
[4]http://www.people-press.org...
[5]http://www.businessinsider.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Discodude16

Con

Discodude16 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Discodude16

Con

Discodude16 forfeited this round.
minddrag

Pro

GG and thank you so very much :)
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by CodingSource 12 months ago
CodingSource
minddrag's argument is practically unreadable (or I am just feeling dizzy in the font used). However, he wins by conduct.

Use that font minddrag. You will be well-known when you used it.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Your actually getting better at debating

Guess you dont need a nazi to mentor you after all
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Good

You actually linked your sources
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 11 months ago
Unbelievable.Time
Discodude16minddragTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by CodingSource 11 months ago
CodingSource
Discodude16minddragTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by fire_wings 12 months ago
fire_wings
Discodude16minddragTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by U.n 12 months ago
U.n
Discodude16minddragTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture.