Apple vs U.S.A.: A Case Study on Privacy and Security Policies

This paper discusses the case of Apple vs U.S.A. and the ethical and security concerns surrounding the privacy policies of Apple's mobile devices. It explores the security flaw and ethical considerations of the policies. The research methodology used in the study is also discussed. The subject is privacy and security policies of Apple's mobile devices. No course code, course name or college/university is mentioned.

Running head: APPLE VS U.S.A.
Apple VS U.S.A.
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1APPLE VS U.S.A.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................2
Research Questions....................................................................................................2
Research Objectives:..................................................................................................2
Objectives:..................................................................................................................2
Literature Review:..........................................................................................................3
Introduction:...............................................................................................................3
Security Flaw.............................................................................................................3
Ethical Consideration.................................................................................................4
Research Methodology...................................................................................................6
Introduction:...............................................................................................................6
Limitation:..................................................................................................................6
Ethical Consideration:................................................................................................6
References......................................................................................................................7

2APPLE VS U.S.A.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Apple, this is the most common and most reputed organisation present in the world
which are manufacturing mobile devices for the recent past. Being one of the most reputed
organisation in the world it follows a strict set of rules and regulation. One of the rule is the
privacy concern of the I-phones and the customers. According to Apple the data that are
stored in the mobile devices and cloud system servers of the customers cannot be accessed
without the permission of the customer (Agrawal et al.). This policy of the organisation is
creating some of the major problems for the USA government as it is restricting them to
analyse the data of the criminals and guilty persons.
Research Questions
Some of the major questions arrived while the FBI and the police team interrogated about the
police to the Apple team of management.
Some of the Major Questions that arrived were:
1. If there any criminal activity or threat to the nation information present in the device,
and the user is not alive to open the device, why apple would not provide the
permission to use the same to the police.
2. Why Apple does not have flexible law for the law enforcement agencies.
Research Objectives:
The aim of this paper is to understand the case apple its laws in order to make a
difference among the people.
Objectives:
1. Understand the security polies of the organisation.
2. Ethical consideration of these policies

3APPLE VS U.S.A.
Literature Review:
Introduction:
Apple being one of the most technologically advanced organisation in the world is
having some of the major set of the rules and regulation in the organisation. These laws
protect the devices that the organisation makes from any type of technical threats.
According to the organisation, an apple device when register by a customer then apart
from the customer no other person can open the device and if there is any case of the
forgetting of the password of the system and the cloud server apple will run security
checks and check the authenticity of the request and if and only if the registered person
makes the required apple may or may not unlock the device (Arocha et al). But this policy
of the organisation have some serious issues according to the US Law Agencies. This
came into highlight after the San Bernardino attack in the year of the 2015. The accused
used an iphone8 which was recovered by the FBI after they encountered the attacker in
which the attacker died.
Security Flaw
The Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to unlock the device that was used by the
attack but Apple did not responded to the calls of the FBI as the user was dead. This was
one of the major violation to the policies of the organisation. While the FBI suspected
there may be information related to the security leaks of the United States of thee
America. This became one of the major threats to the country and became a point of the
debate for the researchers and head of the country (Avi-Yonah et al). The major ethical
dilemma in this situation that came up was that as per the policy of the organisation it
must not provide any information to anyone other than the retired person, but the case
came to light when FBI wanted to know the information about the device (Diehl et al).
The technical problem that came up to the FBI department was that if it tried to force

4APPLE VS U.S.A.
fully retrieve the information from the device according to the policy of the organisation
the data would automatically erase from the servers and not even Apple would be able to
retrieve it further. This became one of the major problem in for FBI to crack down the
case. Till the organisation have registered a case against the organisation and wanted the
court to solve the case (Braziel et al). Civic adjudicators asked the technology giant Apple
to assist the FBI to unlock the iPhone that belonged to Syed Farook, who was accused for
the shootings in San Bernardino in December leaving 14 people lifeless (Wash et
al).Further till then many of other cases like this came into lime light there were number
of cases where the Apple users are dead or in a state where the verification cannot be
done and the organisation have seized the devise.
Ethical Consideration
The judges requested Apple to deliver judicious technical support to U.S.A
establishments, which might involve the giant to refurbishment the organization that
restricts the phone after 10 unproductive password efforts (Sergeevich et al). Once this
property kicks in, all records present on the phone becomes inaccessible (Fagan et al).
Apple waned to help the FBI. Although other major ethical situation when the court ruled
against apple and wanted the organisation to unlock the device. Many of the activist of
the country wanted the court toke back the order as this would harm rights of the
customers.
The technical assistance that the court ordered to provide were as follows:
1. The organisation will help the FBI to bypass or disable the auto-erase function
(Sanchirico et al). Thus FBI would gather more information about the system of
the attacker.

5APPLE VS U.S.A.
2. The organization would allow the FBI to defer to passwords to the focus device
for testing automatically via the physical device port like the Bluetooth other
protocols obtainable.
3. The organisation would make sure that while the agency acquiesces passwords to
the issue device, the software that is operating on the device will not decisively
announce any supplementary stay between passwords attempts.
Other than this several other outcome of this came up to be later several new storesd
exposed that there have been frequent requests from law implementation organizations
across the world for Apple to help unlock other iPhones (Garcia et al). This became one
of the major problems for the organisation to approve all the request that were made by
the number of the peoples that came to unlock the devices (Scott et al). Further in
response to this apple CEO Tim Cook, the CEo of the organisation stated that “The
government of the United States has requested to Apple for taking an underrepresented
step of unlocking the apple devices, but the organisation is hesitating to take the step as it
would threaten the security of the customers, hence the people across the world must co-
operate and understand the severity of the situation”.
As per many of the peoples this would lead serious security issues in the devices as
the LAW agencies can implant software in the devices under the apple server which can
lead serious problems for the user (Otte , Stephen ). The government can also track the
user details using the flaws of the devices.
Later by the year FBI said to the public that they have successfully unlocked the
device of the attacker using a third party organization. And there are flaws in the devices
of the apple. The customers’ reaction in all these were terrible as others can also unlock
the devices using the same flaw. IN return Apple rolled out statements that this have can

6APPLE VS U.S.A.
only be accessed in the devices of the Iphone5 Series as the models lacks the Touch ID
sensor. Apple also said that the tool used for the hack costs over $1.3 billion and hence
cannot be purchased by common people.
Research Methodology
Introduction:
In order to make a proper research in this context, quantitative assessment of the
Apple store managers and some of the customers were done. The process was through
serving the question and answers and see if they agree to the order of the law. This process
was done in order to bring out a better result of the research and the purpose of the study.
Limitation:
Some of the major limitations of the study came out to be less information about the
court room conversation as some conversation and decisions were never made public and no
one would have ever accessed it. Further the steps that were taken by the organization in
ensuring proper security to the devices were also not properly analysed.
Ethical Consideration:
The situation of this case were a very serious ethical issue for the consumers of the
Apple, as for the public both the personal and the country security is important. If the people
wanted to hand over the devices for the purpose of the state then there were chances for the
hackers to use information stored in the devices against them. Also of the does not hand over
hand over the information the country can block the organisation from operating as it can
become a threat to the nation.

7APPLE VS U.S.A.
References
Agrawal, Vishal V., Atalay Atasu, and Koert Van Ittersum. "Remanufacturing, third-party
competition, and consumers' perceived value of new products." Management Science 61.1
(2015): 60-72.
Arocha, Jenna B. "Getting to the Core: A Case Study on the Company Culture of Apple Inc."
(2017).
Avi-Yonah, Reuven, and Gianluca Mazzoni. "Apple State Aid Ruling: A Wrong Way to
Enforce the Benefits Principle?." (2016).
Braziel, Rick, et al. "Bringing Calm to Chaos: A Critical Incident Review of the San
Bernardino Public Safety Response to the December 2, 2015, Terrorist Shooting Incident at
the Inland Regional Center." United States. Department of Justice. Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services. United States. Department of Justice. Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, 2016.
Fagan, Michael, Mohammad Maifi Hasan Khan, and Ross Buck. "A study of users’
experiences and beliefs about software update messages." Computers in Human Behavior51
(2015): 504-519.
Garcia, Arturo Javier. "Not All Heroes Wear Capes: Microsoft and Apple v. the Department
of Justice." Willamette J. Int'l L. & Dis. Res. 25 (2017): 78.
Otte, Stephen J. "Whether the Department of Justice Should Have the Authority to Compel
Apple Inc. to Breach Its iPhone Security Measures." U. Cin. L. Rev. 85 (2017): 877.
Rajasekaran, Senthilkumar, et al. "Query based k-DRM for Software Security." Indian
Journal of Science and Technology8.17 (2015).

8APPLE VS U.S.A.
Sanchirico, Chris William. "As American as Apple Inc.: international tax and ownership
nationality." Tax L. Rev. 68 (2014): 207.
Sergeevich, Silnov Dmitry, and Tarakanov Oleg Vladimirovich. "Virus detection backdoor in
microsoft security essentials." International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information 18.6
Scott, Karen, Deborah Richards, and Rajindra Adhikari. "A review and comparative analysis
of security risks and safety measures of mobile health apps." (2015). (A) (2015): 2513.
Wash, Rick, et al. "Out of the loop: How automated software updates cause unintended
security consequences." Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). 2014.
Diehl, Kevin A. "How Sour Is the Apple Inc.? What the Rest of the World Can Learn about
Financial Reporting from Apple's Less Than Exemplary Role Modeling." Global Virtue
Ethics Review 7.2 (2016).