Cyrus R. Vance Jr. is the Manhattan district attorney, who published a debate in the New York Times a room for debate about “Crimes, iPhones and Encryption” he titled his piece “No Smartphone Lies Beyond the Reach of a Judicial Search Warrant” published February 18, 2016. Vance does not approve of the idea of not giving the authorities permission to investigate some ones phone for a criminal action they have done. Vance believes that criminal investigations should be made by courts and legislatures, Not by Apple and Google. Public safety is affected by not being unable to unlock encrypted phones, for criminal actions. Cyrus Vance develops an effective claim of why it can be a safety issue. When it comes to finding the criminals data, but not being able to obtain the information is all it takes, not knowing what their plan would be next.
“What Qualifies as Legitimate Access in the iPhone case”, written by Joel R. Reidenberg, whom is a former law professor published February 18, 2016. Reidenberg agrees that the government should have the ability to compel companies to unlock encrypted devices for evidence of criminal actions, but it should not ask for companies to rebuild access tools and security vulnerabilities. Reidenberg wants the audience to be aware that the government should ask for phone companies to build weaker security system on our phones, but to propose a help when needing to enter a criminal's encrypted device. This room for debate article targets people who believe the government should receive help, unlocking the phones for criminal investigation only.
I agree with Joel R. Reidenberg, Iphone's encrypted lock is one who is very difficult to unlock, but Apple should help the F.B.I unlock criminals data if they have obtained court orders. The government as well should not be forcing companies to change their security system just for their own personal situations. Reidenberg provided clear evidence and examples that made you think of why this should be done.
“What Qualifies as Legitimate Access in the iPhone case”, written by Joel R. Reidenberg, whom is a former law professor published February 18, 2016. Reidenberg agrees that the government should have the ability to compel companies to unlock encrypted devices for evidence of criminal actions, but it should not ask for companies to rebuild access tools and security vulnerabilities. Reidenberg wants the audience to be aware that the government should ask for phone companies to build weaker security system on our phones, but to propose a help when needing to enter a criminal's encrypted device. This room for debate article targets people who believe the government should receive help, unlocking the phones for criminal investigation only.
I agree with Joel R. Reidenberg, Iphone's encrypted lock is one who is very difficult to unlock, but Apple should help the F.B.I unlock criminals data if they have obtained court orders. The government as well should not be forcing companies to change their security system just for their own personal situations. Reidenberg provided clear evidence and examples that made you think of why this should be done.