Looking Into FBI vs Apple in Relation to the Patriot Act

FBI vs. Apple in Relation to the Patriot Act America is divided over the tradeoff between personal privacy and security needs. The focus is, now, on the government surveillance, but there are concerns over how data is being used by businesses. The issue was raised after the federal court was requested to force Apple to assist the FBI to unlock one of the phones used by a suspect in the terrorist attack carried out in December 2015 in San Bernardino, Californian (Rainie and Maniam, 2016).

Apple petitioned the order to safeguard the security of other iPhone users. This provoked a national conversation on how far the technological firms should go in as far as protecting their privacy and cooperating with law enforcement agencies is concerned. The unfolding events have had an impact on how the public feels about the issue. Terrorism generates a lot of anxiety. A good example is the San Bernardino and Paris shootings, which occurred late in the year 2015.

According to the Pew Research Center, the survey conducted in December discovered that the public felt that the anti-terror policies implanted by the government are not protecting the country while 28% of the respondents expressed concern that the policies were in essence restricting civil liberties for the average person. Two years earlier, there had been furor when Edward Snowden revealed the details of the National Security agency surveillance program.

The majority were of the view that the antiterrorism programs had gone too far in restricting civil liberties (47%) while only 35% felt that they were actually protecting the country. In 2005, President George W. Bush authorized NSA to eavesdrop on the U.S. citizens. Pew Research Center survey established that 50% of the respondents felt that America had not gone far in their quest to protect the country against Terrorism threats.

54% felt that it was right for the government to monitor all the phones and email communications of all Americans suspected to be engaging in terrorism activities without necessarily having to obtain court permission. 43% of them thought that it was generally wrong to eavesdrop. A similar number of people responded in the same way after President Obama took office in 2009 (Rainie and Maniam, 2016). Immediately after Snowden revelations in 2013, the Pew Research Center poll found that 48% of Americans approved the government's effort to collect data to be used in the antiterrorism efforts.

However, this approval had declined by 40% by January 2014 (Rainie and Maniam, 2016). Many Americans continue to express concern about the government's surveillance concerns, especially surveillance on electronic communication and data. 46% of the respondents said that they were not concerned with the surveillance. Businesses continue to mine data about their clients while the American citizens are concerned with preserving privacy of their personal behavior and information.

Following the big data breaches, the views have really intensified following the data breaches at various companies such as eBay, Target and Anthem, eBay and personal file (Rainie and Maniam, 2016). Pew survey showed that people are anxious about their security and personal data. The majority of them feel that they have lost control of personal data. This has increased anxiety. They are not confident that companies that collect this information will manage to keep it safely. FBI vs.

Apple On 2nd Dec 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 others were severely injured when terrorists attacked San Bernardino, USA The Attack was executed by Tashfeen Malik and her husband Rizwan Farook. The couple started plotting the attack before they got engaged. Farook's phone is believed to contain vital information which may help prevent terrorist attacks in the future. The FBI has ordered Apple to create software that will help unlock and retrieve information from iPhone without necessarily knowing what the password is.

Apple refused to engage in such activities arguing that it would violet the consumers' privacy (Editorial Board, 2016). This has resulted in a controversy on whether FBI should create a master key or not. The federal judge requested Apple to help FBI unlock Farook's phone. It asked Apple to avail technical assistance to the authorities, a process which would require an overhaul of the system that disables phones after 10 unsuccessful password attempts. When this happens, it makes all the data inaccessible. Apple did not help the FBI (Kharpal, 2016).

In fact, Apple's CEO called the order chilling and said that this would require that it writes new software that would be capable of doing the master key task. Cook argued that if the FBI were allowed to access this iPhone, using the master key, nothing would actually stop them from doing the same to other people. The FBI insisted that this was just a one-off request hence the case ended up in courts.

This case is one of the few high profile clash cases over debate on data privacy and encryption. According to the law enforcement authorities, the encryptions used by phone manufacturers make it difficult for them to stop terrorist attacks or solve terrorist puzzles. On the other hand, technology firms responded by arguing that encryption is necessary since it helps protect data from the-would-be hackers (Kharpal, 2016).

The privacy of data is a sensitive topic, especially after it was revealed that the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden voiced the extent of government's surveillance activities. In February, a ruling in favor of Apple was delivered by a judge. He argued that it was wrong for the firm to be compelled to break into its client's phone under All Writs Act. The U.S., Department of Justice (DoJ) promised to fight back till the ruling is overturned (Editorial Board, 2016).

The San Bernardino case thought that it would assure Apple's support under the All Writs Act. This is a law passed in 1789, which permits judges to direct observance with court orders and search warrants. The government relied on this Act to argue that it acquired search warrants related to iPhone and argued that they might compel Apple to ease access to its device. Apple opposed it and argued that it was not right to order the company to concede its security (Editorial Board, 2016; Kharpal, 2016).

Never the less, Apple has been able to provide data on its products in more than 70 cases. However, having improved on its newer software version, it has now lost its capability to remove information for the Authorities. However, the government may carry on depending on the "All Writs Act" and hope that one day the court will provide support to any one of its cases. Alternatively, it may wait for a solution from the congress through legislation. None of these options is appealing to the government.

The Patriot Act The events of September 11, 2001 are the origin of the U.S. War on Terror popularized by the Bush administration. The previous American strategies were to combat terrorism targeting attacks on its interests abroad as well supporting the government to cub terrorism within its boundaries. The September 11 incidence revealed that the U.S. was vulnerable to the violence (McCarthy, 2002). The U.S. responded by reshaping its anti-terrorist strategies to help prevent future attacks. To facilitate prosecution of terrorists, the U.S.

Congress passed a resolution to unite and strengthen America by (USA PATRIOTACT) Providing Appropriate Tools Required to help Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The act was signed into law in October 26, 2001 and was enacted to help eliminate laws that obstructed intelligence gathering and surveillance. The Patriot Act permits investigators to make use of the apparatus that had readily been available to carry out investigation into drug trafficking and organized crime.

The tools that this act offers to help against terrorism have been utilized for many decades; they have been assessed as well as permitted by the courts. The act allows the law enforcement agencies to make use of surveillance against organized crime. Before enactment of the Patriotic Act, the courts permitted the law enforcement to carryout surveillance electronically in investigating the ordinary citizens on crimes not related to terrorism, including passport fraud, mail fraud as well as drug related crimes (Doyle, 2001).

Agents could also wiretap and investigate crimes committed by terrorism. This act allowed investigators to collect data on a wide range of terrorism associated crimes such as using of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), chemical weapons, killing of Americans overseas and financing terrorism. Unfortunately, when lawbreakers are alerted prematurely, about an inquiry, they flee, kill witnesses, destroy evidence and cut off links with associates. Because of this, the federal courts allow the law enforcement to postpone before the subject is informed about the judicially permitted search authorization and its execution.

A notice is provided and law enforcements are given identification time to associates; eliminate threats and apprehending suspects before alerting them (McCarthy, 2002). The Patriot Act updates the law to reflect the new threats and the new technology. The act makes it easier to fight the digital age battle using the modern technology. It permits computer hacking victims to be helped in observing trespassers (McCarthy, 2002).

Nowadays, electronic hacking is treated seriously as physical trespassers and hacking victims can acquire assistance from law enforcement to fight hackers whilst victims of burglary can invite law enforcement officers in their residences to catch burglars. How Practical the Patriot Act goes in the FBI vs. Apple Case FBI defines terrorism in a way that resonates with the Patriot Act. In the definition, it is pointed out that terrorism encompasses acts that infringe people's rights, threaten their lives, and violate state and federal laws.

These acts seem aimed at: i.) coercing or intimidating populations; ii.) influencing government policy by coercion and threats; and iii.) influencing how a government carries out its operations by way of kidnaps, assassination, and mass destruction of property. The definition further differentiates domestic and international terrorism. It is puzzling why it was not possible to track the San Bernardino couple with the help of the Patriot act. The act permits investigative authorities and agencies of government to probe suspects' activities on their electronic devices, including computer and phones.

However, even with these privileges extended to the national security agencies, they could not track the activities of the couple prior to the fatal event. The couple is reported to have been in constant communication with such extremists as Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook. The couple eliminated any traces of their activities from the hard drives of their computers. This begs the question as to whether the Patriot Act is really effective.

One is left to wonder whether anyone is really watching over people that may be in communique with terrorists. In the event that the Act isn't helping, what steps should the authorities take to protect American civilians? The investigative authorities had to dig into the couple's past to get an idea of just how they were radicalized. The process of investigation involves mining the couple's phone cards from the past. The aim is to find out whether the couple was part of a wider network of terrorists.

The objective is to find out the people that were in contact with the couple, and at what times. Investigative agencies could access up to five years of Meta, data prior to the pint of the attack meted out by the couple. Unfortunately, such records were just that, records. The authorities could not access the content of such communications- as per the Patriot Act of 2001 (The Chicago Tribune, 2015). However, this restriction was diluted by Congress by limiting such access to only two years.

The result was the fatal incident of Nov 29th. Furthermore, investigators find it harder to access such records now. Initially, such records were in custody of the National Security agency. The new policies only allow telecommunications companies to keep such records. Consequently, investigative agencies are now required to obtain warrants from the courts in order to get their hands on such records (The Chicago Tribune, 2015). In 2005 Spring, the National Security agencies supported an extension to allow them retain the records they had for longer.

The congress, on the other hand, reduced the powers of NSA in the U.S.A. Freedom Act. This system is obviously worrisome because it presented bottlenecks to the investigation process. Comey, from the FBI, narrated in his testimony at Congress that it was too early to point out how effective the law was. He noted that they could not give an objective view of the effectiveness of the new law compared to what existed earlier (The Chicago Tribune, 2015). The FBI needed time to make this determination.

Yet, so far, there are no indications that the San Bernardino incident could have been detected under the Patriot Act. Michael Rogers, the director of NSA and the Cyber Command of the U.S. pointed out that the changes to the earlier law would not assist, but hamper the efforts to counter malicious activities through investigation. He was candid and pointed out that the changes were bound to make America less safe (The Chicago Tribune, 2015).

He said that the new law prevented him and his team from quickly accessing and analyzing the meta-data in situations of emergency. The requirement to follow the different command chain meant that they would lose crucial time in the bureaucratic red tape. The November attack is an eye opener. The new laws are subject to scrutiny as to whether they really help investigative agencies in their bid to prevent attacks against Americans.

How Relevant is the Patriot Act to the FBI versus Apple Case? Civil rights groups have insisted that the Patriot Act infringes on people's freedoms (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2002). The activities of these organizations and groups may be responsible for the rejection of the Patriot Act by over 400 counties and towns. Furthermore, seven States and several organizations across the U.S.A. also add to that list. Lawyers point out that the Patriot Act takes away many civil liberties provided for in the constitution.

Some of the liberties that are threatened by the Patriot Act include the First Amendment, which highlights the freedom of speech, the Fourth Amendment- which points out the freedom from unreasonable ransacking and seizure, the Fifth Amendment -- the right to the due process of law, the Sixth Amendment - right to public, fair, speedy trials, the right to counter and confront one's accusers and the right to criminal defense mechanisms, and the eighth Amendment that highlights the freedom to protection against excessive force and unconventional punishment.

In order to further explain how the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act infringes on these rights, it allows, for instance, the agency can have access to several private records including hospital, library, educational financial and other record details of people as long as they have a good reason to do so for the sake of gathering intelligence for national security. It also deters the custodians of such information from revealing to the people affected that their personal data has been shared with such security agencies (Appalachian State University, 2016).

Under the act, government agencies are allowed to tap into phone lines, and follow their use of the internet. They can track every activity people do, including all communication and all the websites they visit. With orders from the department of justice, the police department can access and seize the property of the citizens without alerting them of the search; imminent or executed. The agencies are further empowered to spy on the activities of religious organizations, individuals and political entities without showing any evidence of criminal engagements by the subjects.

It is possible for citizens to be detained against the backdrop of secretive evidence held against them by the security agency. The USA Patriot Act constrains.