Apple, The Apple of the Media's Eye and San Berindino's

I walk out of my Wednesday morning Security and Risk Analysis class and past the TV screen which usually has some CNN News flashingupon the screen. I usually walk past it, but this time it caught my attention. News headlines of Apple refusing to help the FBI unlock the San Bernardino attacker’s iPhone flash upon the screen. This controversial and civic security issue drags me in; I watch the TV and read the subtitles that scroll across the screen so long that I am almost late to my next class.

I did not even know about the San Bernardino attacks before the headline flashed across the screen on Wednesday morning. I guess I have been stuck in the Penn State Blue and White Bubble that the news I hear about is the news that blows up or the news that I want to hear. This blog has helped really come to terms with the fact that I should be keeping up on issues and evaluate the different opinions about the issue at hand to form my own educated opinion, not just an opinion of someone else.

Let’s go back to December, what was the San Bernardino attack and who was it targeted against?

The attack took place on December 2nd, 2015. Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, opened fire around noon on group of San Bernardino County Public Health Department workers during their holiday party that morning. They killed 14 people and wounded around 20 people; making the attack, the biggest and most devastating since the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

What this have to do with Apple?

If you haven’t read Apple’s Letter to their Customers, then here is the lowdown. Farook, the male attacker, possessed an iPhone. The authorities including the highlighted authority, the FBI, have been using GPS tracking and other information from sites like Facebook to gather information about the attackers, as they were not involved with the law before this incident. Up until this point, Apple, according to its letter and many news outlets, has been chill with helping out the FBI in investigations with its devices.

Now, Apple feels that the FBI has crossed a line of privacy. This time, they think that the only way they can give the FBI what they want/need is by creating a “backdoor” to Apple devices in a whole new version of the operating system. The FBI wants to be able to use a computer that will go through every combination of lock numerical password combinations, so that it cannot unlock the phone and the FBI can see who Farook called or where he went.

You ask, why can’t they do that now?

Do you remember that fancy little message that popped up when you try to “hack” into your best friend’s phone and fail multiple times? You know the message in red that says, you have 10 attempts and then this iPhone will auto-erase. AUTO-ERASE, is the key here. The FBI cannot use a password cruncher if the iPhone erases after 10 times, then all the evidence will be compromised.

There are two sides to this issue, the Apple side and the victim side. Many of the victim’s and the FBI believe that Apple refusing a judge’s request to help unlock the phone severely undermines national security. Many of the victims are outraged because not only do they want some sort of conclusion, but they believe it may provide further insight into how we can protect our country.

Google supports Apple in its decision to not create something that would compromise personal security. Along with the likes of Edward Snowden, who spoke out about Google’s silence on Twitter, before they spoke out. He said, “This is the most important tech case in a decade. Silence means @google picked a side, but it is not the public’s.”

Does keeping silent really speak louder than words? Personally, for this issue, it does.

Both sides of the issue, the Apple side and the victim side, both want the same thing security, but they want in different ways.

I feel as though Apple’s way is cautious and the safe way and the best way to go. I personally do not want my personal information that I keep on my phone, vulnerable to attacks or spying, “big brother” eyes. Opening a backdoor or even the opportunity for one not only creates a way for the FBI to get into the attackers phone, but it also creates future opportunity and temptation for our government and other governments to expand their rights and invade our privacy.

We, The Immigrants, Of The United States

A major debate among presidential candidates, congress, and the public is based around the question of whether or not we should allow Syrian Refugees to take sanctuary and build a life in the United States.

A CNN article published in November of 2015, exclaims that 31 states do not welcome Syrian refugees. Back in November, “authorities revealed that at least one of the suspects believed to be involved in the Paris terrorist attacks entered Europe among the current wave of Syrian refugees. He had falsely identified himself as a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad and was allowed to enter Greece in early October”.

The CNN article continues to paint the picture of the forefront of the issue by stating that since 2011 only 1,500 Syrian refugees have been allowed into the US; however, the Obama administration was going to allow 10,000 Syrians entry this year.

The conflict of opinion seems as though it arises from the lack of knowledge among the American people, as well as the concentrated media coverage of what we should be focusing on in terms of letting in refugees.

Over 100,000 civilian Syrians have already been killed in the fight in Syria. Many are worried that it will be their last night alive. Despite the amount of hardship we know the Syrians are facing we continue to become increasingly less supportive of refugees of any kind coming into our country. In 1979 57% of Americans did not support allowing Vietnamese refugees into the United States. A poll taken in November of 2015 reported that more than 60% of Americans did not favor taking in Syrian refugees.

Have the American people become desensitized to the world around them? Do we only take concern when people are flanking our country by taking a “not-in-my-country” stance? Do we not remember what our history was and that our ancestors were all immigrants once? Do we think that our ancestors only moved “just because”?

Focusing on the “not-in-my-country” stance, should we really be concerned about terrorism by Syrian Muslims? The answer is maybe. No one can have a percentage of Muslim terrorists, but that is not to say that Syrian refugees can’t be terrorists. Should America live in fear of the possibility of 10,000 refugees being terrorists? The answer is not simple. Many state governors argue that refugees pose too great of a risk to national security. But what makes it ok for many countries in Europe to offer refuge? Why does religion scare us so much? Why aren’t we more focused on the terrorism that is based off of extremist religious beliefs rather than generally collect all types of the Muslim religion under the terrorist category?

Take for instance this article with the headline: “No Christians: All 132 Syrian Refugees Admitted to U.S. Since Paris Attacks are Sunni Muslims”.

Shouldn’t we be asking if we can actually deal with influx of refugees expected to come, rather than focus on extremist egocentric ideas?

Well, if you are not asking this question, here is the answer from a Business Insider Article from September 2015. Since 2011, most refugees are living in camps on Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq, where the UN registers them as refugees. At the time of the article, 18000 of the most vulnerable refugees were referred to the U.S, where the United States Department of Homeland Security screens and interviews them. “Each case file is reviewed by the National Counterterrorism Center” and other agencies. The procedure takes anywhere from 18 to 24 months. “Once refugees are approved, the State Department pays the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to fly them to the United States.” The cost for the screening alone costs the US government, thus far, $1.1 billion dollars resettling 70,000 people.

With an issue like the Syrian Immigrant Crisis continuing to be on the rise. We must put all the facts out on the table before sound opinion can be made. We must weigh the costs and the benefits and really leave all things considered.