Back in March, Apple was ordered by a federal judge to unlock the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter, Syed Farook. The reason the FBI needed Apple to unlock the phone was because the FBI disabled the phone after several attempts at unlocking the password. The FBI needed Apple to override the software that disabled the phone in the first place. In order to do this, Apple would have need to create a whole new code that would be able to unlock every iPhone. Apple refused to do this because of its dangerous potential. Furthermore, it would allow the FBI to access any iPhone it wanted, not just the shooter's. The situation ended when the FBI was able to do it on its own. This situation can be analyzed using several ACM clauses. Apple's actions clearly adhere to clause 2.05, respect confidentiality because it refuses to create software that would allow the FBI and other to gain access to anybody's iPhone. Furthermore, by refusing the FBI, Apple is refusing outside work that is detrimental to the job, which is clause 2.08. Helping the FBI would have been detrimental because it would have compromised the trust of Apple customers and may caused many to stop buying their products. Thirdly, Apple is adhering to clause 2.09, which states that a company must put client's interest's first, unless overriding moral concern. Clearly, Apple is putting its customers first by refusing the FBI. Furthermore, there is no overriding moral concern due to the fact the privacy of million's of people were at stake. Lastly, Apple's decision helped create an environment supporting ethical conduct, which is clause 6.01. It helped create this kind of environment by placing the privacy rights of millions over anything else.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html
Comment on the above.
Back in March, Apple was ordered by a federal judge to unlock the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter, Syed Farook. The reason the FBI needed Apple to unlock the phone was because the FBI disabled the phone after several attempts at unlocking the password. The FBI needed Apple to override the software that disabled the phone in the first place. In order to do this, Apple would have need to create a whole new code that would be able to unlock every iPhone. Apple refused to do this because of its dangerous potential. Furthermore, it would allow the FBI to access any iPhone it wanted, not just the shooter's. The situation ended when the FBI was able to do it on its own. This situation can be analyzed using several ACM clauses. Apple's actions clearly adhere to clause 2.05, respect confidentiality because it refuses to create software that would allow the FBI and other to gain access to anybody's iPhone. Furthermore, by refusing the FBI, Apple is refusing outside work that is detrimental to the job, which is clause 2.08. Helping the FBI would have been detrimental because it would have compromised the trust of Apple customers and may caused many to stop buying their products. Thirdly, Apple is adhering to clause 2.09, which states that a company must put client's interest's first, unless overriding moral concern. Clearly, Apple is putting its customers first by refusing the FBI. Furthermore, there is no overriding moral concern due to the fact the privacy of million's of people were at stake. Lastly, Apple's decision helped create an environment supporting ethical conduct, which is clause 6.01. It helped create this kind of environment by placing the privacy rights of millions over anything else.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html
Comment on the above.
