Of course they should! They made so many apps that they have made and placed in the app store and have the app so only FBI can open/use it and once they open the phone Apple can remove the app from the app store. They've done it before multiple times.
Apple, since first introduced iPhone, how many times have they unlocked their iPhones for the government? Of course, they wouldn't tell you that, because it is what marketing is all about. Apple keep saying privacy and privacy, but in the end, they already passed the customer's privacy line. I bet other companies were also doing this but didn't tell it, because of their reputation.
Not only that, privacy should have some transparency. Why are you scare of the government looking, hearing, at your phone's stuff? Like what's in there? Your mom's gas bills? Your grandma's daily prescription? Your Flappy Bird high score? Or your terrorist plot against the people? This is the loophole that terrorist is still living today, IS, Al-Qaeda, and Taliban... Privacy should not be extend too much until the point where you can't even see what suspicious action they are doing.
I'll promise you, people will reconsider privacy is not safe for them.
The FBI should have access to the phone because if there was to be another case where the phone can tell whether they are guilty or not then they need to be able to get into the phone. Although I wonder if the phone has the finger print ID then they could recreate his/her fingerprint
Apple needs to protect all of its customers' privacy, no matter who they are. A phone in the 21st century, when everyone has become so dependent on technology, is analogous to one's mind decades ago when there were no phones. The FBI getting access to the shooter's phone would be as if they got access to his mind. That kind of investigation is not at all what the FBI should be doing. It would be a violation of one of the most basic, important human rights: the right to privacy.
Also, if Apple helped the FBI with this case, they would be obliged to help with future cases, and even other countries who request their help with things like this when the opportunity arises. It's much better to just protect everyone's privacy.
If you read this article carefully, you find that the FBI doesn't want Apple to simply break into Farook's phone or decrypt his passcode. Rather, they want Apple to develop the software that can disable or bypass the phone's security features, including the one that wipes the phone clean if 10 incorrect passcodes are attempted.
The FBI promises that this is only a one time gig, but how can they resist not using a piece of software that bypasses apple encryption technology in the future?
The same software designers who encrypted wtheyh
Apple should stick with what they are saying with this "backdoor". This software won't just work on one phone, specifically San Bernardio's, but will have to work on every single other phone running the same OS. This is a bit of an IF, but it is still an IF, and this IF can still happen. Let's just say one of the FBI members like this software and use it on there friend as a joke, or someone copies all of the files needed for the software to work, or even better, an hacker hacks into one of the PC's that has this software on it, and gets it onto there computer, which gets distributed on something like a website or the deep web. This CAN potentially happen, and can even be modded to fit with other operating systems to have hackers get all sorts of stuff.
While many people will claim that the phone must be unlocked to prevent future attacks there is no definitive proof that it will (as there can't be). Even so the FBI could use this for anything they want. This will violate the human rights of innocent people as the FBI could theoretically order tech companies to turn over anything on its users devices. I also don't think there's much on the phone that they need as most communication information can be found in phone records and through their email host provider.
"This case is about much more than a single phone or a single investigation," Cook wrote, "so when we received the government's order we knew we had to speak out."
"At stake is the data security of hundreds of millions of law-abiding people and setting a dangerous precedent that threatens everyone's civil liberties."