Taking a bite out of Apple isn’t as easy as one may think.
The pivotal debate of national security versus personal liberties is shining its spotlight on revolutionary tech giant Apple because the FBI insists that a “backdoor” be created to peek inside an iPhone of one of the San Bernardino, California terrorist attackers. From 36,000 feet, most Americans support our nation’s security forces doing whatever they can to learn, infiltrate and defeat terrorist cells and networks. And reasonably so. However, when Americans zoom-in from the birds eye view of this complex, serious situation (from a drone in the sky, you could say), the collective damage this individual request poses gives reason to push back.
Precedent is inevitably what’s at stake.
Once a government can legally force the hands of a public company consisting of private citizens to do its bidding, regardless of outspoken reservations and, more bluntly, refusing to perform such a service after careful consideration, the door then swings wide-open for an uncertain expansion of said questionable action.
What kinds of expansions? How will this affect you? Will this security measure definitively makes us safer or will it expose us to a myriad of unforeseen digital invasions?
There will never be a perfect balance between the equitable assets of national security and personal liberties. Each situation needs to be dealt with individually and with a fresh set of eyes with considerations to the past and future, especially in an increasingly connected world/digital grid. Moments will arise when tough security responses must be green-lit with immediacy, as well as difficult scenarios when security officials should practice restraint for the sake of protecting the bigger issue(s) at hand.
Should Tim Cook’s Apple “open” the San Bernardino phone? He says no.
Does co-founder Steve “The Woz” Wozniak think Apple should “open” the San Bernardino phone?
Apple vs. The FBI will directly influence how the United States (and possibly its allies) combat the guerrilla terrorism used by ISIS and similar terrorist networks for the foreseeable future, especially as technology continues to evolve and expand.
The stakes in this dispute are insanely great.
The argument against the Iran Deal’s publicized “merits” to extinguish the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is that a better deal could have been negotiated. The problem with that assertion is the foolish presumption that what currently exists qualifies as an agreement with any degree of effectiveness.
It’s downright terrible and embarrassing on an epic level.
“Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work,” the Associated Press reports.
Don’t be fooled: The P5+1 did not engage in negotiations with Iran all these years, but instead gradually collapsed into a series of devastatingly bad concessions to one of the most dangerous countries in the world.
What did the United States get in this agreement? The answer is increasingly nothing relative to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The consequences of this deal for Israel are directly connected to its survival.
The key question in all of this is why did it take Secretary Kerry and Co. so long to give the farm and all the land away? The willful incompetence and delusional views of the Obama Administration (not just with this deal) is simply incomprehensible.
If we don’t like President Obama’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad deal, tough luck because we’ll likely have to live with President Obama’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad deal.
Out of curiosity, are there any international sanctions against common sense? If so, the U.S. and its P5+1 allies are in trouble.