# data[].attributes.body
The dispute began after the December 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack, when the FBI seized the attacker’s iPhone 5C to try to retrieve data that might reveal accomplices or networks.

The FBI asked Apple to build “special software” (a backdoor) to bypass security (disable features like auto-erase after failed password attempts, etc.). Apple refused, arguing that doing so would compromise the security and privacy of all iPhone users.

The heart of the conflict: law enforcement’s desire to access encrypted data for safety/justice vs. user privacy, data security, and precedent risks.

# data[].attributes.body
The sources don’t dive into a lot of broad statistics, but some relevant figures / technical details:

The iPhone in question used 256-bit AES encryption, which is considered extremely strong and essentially infeasible to brute-force with current technology.

The phone was protected so that 10 failed passcode attempts would wipe (erase) all data.

Apple claims it has responded to over 125,000 law enforcement requests for data (what it can access server-side) but that it cannot comply when it comes to device decryption without user credentials.

# data[].attributes.headline
3. What / whose data was (or could be) accessed, stolen, shared, or requested

# data[].attributes.subject
3. What / whose data was (or could be) accessed, stolen, shared, or requested

# data[].attributes.body
The target was the iPhone 5C belonging to one of the shooters (Syed Rizwan Farook).

The FBI sought to access all internal data (messages, contacts, emails, location data, app data, etc.). Because of encryption, Apple’s cooperation would mean bypassing all security protections.

There is no known broader data breach in this case (i.e. Apple’s systems were not compromised); the case is about forced access and weakening encryption.

Apple argued that, if such software were built, malicious actors or other governments could demand or exploit it and access the data of millions of voluntary users.

# data[].attributes.headline
4. Laws / legal principles involved & how they were (allegedly) violated

# data[].attributes.subject
4. Laws / legal principles involved & how they were (allegedly) violated

# data[].attributes.body
The FBI petitioned under the All Writs Act (a statute that lets federal courts issue writs “necessary or appropriate” to carry out their duties). They asked a federal magistrate judge to compel Apple to assist.

Apple countered that forcing it to create and provide decryption software would violate (or undermine) constitutional protections (e.g. Fourth Amendment privacy interests) and public policy on data security. (It also raised arguments that the order would overreach into private sector obligations.)

There was debate about whether the demand was overly broad, whether Apple should be forced to build something akin to a universal “master key,” and whether it would be safe.

No clear statutory law (e.g. no explicit “you must build a backdoor”) had been previously established in U.S. law; so this case was pushing the boundaries.

Some political and legislative proposals have tried (or advocated) forcing companies to build “lawful access” mechanisms, but critics warn such requirements fundamentally weaken encryption for all.

# data[].attributes.body
Before the court could force Apple to comply, the FBI announced it had found a third-party (external) method to unlock the iPhone. As a result, the government withdrew its court order / request to Apple.

Apple never made the software, and the case did not result in a binding precedent forcing Apple (or any company) to build backdoors.

The larger debate continues, especially as new technologies (biometrics, stronger encryption, cloud storage) evolve and governments continue asking for “backdoor access” in criminal or national security cases.

# data[].attributes.body
From this article: https://www.ucumberlands.edu/blog/understanding-the-ethics-of-data-collection

"It doesn't take much in the way of research to discover examples of major data breaches and other instances where businesses simply weren't as serious about protecting customer data as they should have been."

This is a major concern of companies being able to store personal information. While data leaks aren't an everyday occurrence, they happen and it's important to consider this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It doesn't take much in the way of research to discover examples of major data breaches and other instances where businesses simply weren't as serious about protecting customer data as they   have been. Unfortunately, poor data ethics can result in major events, like misuse of data internally and even data breaches.

Following ethical data practices is paramount not just in the sense that it helps your business build trust and set itself apart from competitors, but because it could actually protect your business from facing costly and troublesome legal and compliance risks. These days, there is data protection regulation in place meant to set basic principles for ethical data collection that   businesses should follow.

To note, the  General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)  outlines how businesses should collect and use data from customers with transparency, fairness, accuracy, and confidentiality. Combine this with existing data privacy laws that already exist in some industries, such as HIPAA regulations in healthcare, and it's easy to see how even a small mistake or misstep can land a business in a world of legal trouble. In some cases, fines and hefty penalties may even apply.

Looking to enhance your business education with an advanced degree? University of the Cumberlands is proud to offer a  Master of Science in Business Analytics  degree program that can be completed entirely online, preparing students with the most in-demand business analytics tools and techniques in today's dynamic world.   today to learn more about this program or get started with your online   for enrollment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding the Ethics of Data Collection and Responsible Data Usage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn principles of ethical data collection and usage. Discover how you can protect consumer data, ensure transparency, and build trust.

# data[].attributes.body
I could see why some would be concerned about the FBI being able to unlock devices in special ways because they could use this for bad purposes theoretically too. However, the case of a mass-shooter or terrorist makes it a lot different in my opinion. Because it is not only important if possible to find motives but also means of prevention. For example, if there was another attack or attacks planned, the FBI could use that phone information to prevent it.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't have an issue with getting inside the phone of someone like a mass-shooter like in this case. Once you commit such a serious crime, you should absolutely lose any right to privacy. People have a right to know why something might've happened and what a killer's motives were.

# data[].attributes.body
"Jane Horvath, said that “end-to-end encryption is critically important to the services we rely on.” And with regard to fighting terrorism, she continued that “building a backdoor to encryption is not the way we’re going to solve those issues.”"

highlights that data could have been used, perhaps some wanted to even use it. although the quote highlights why they do not.

# data[].attributes.body
"Apple would be able to choose the extent to which it aided the FBI in unlocking the phone, and the company would be allowed to keep and destroy the software it created to do so."

"The FBI eventually accessed that device without Apple’s help, working with a third-party security firm."

"If there’s a backdoor for the good guys, you better believe that the bad guys will figure out how to exploit it"