Following the Islamic Terrorist attack that took place in San Bernardino last December, the FBI has ordered Apple to allow them to access shooter Syed Farook’s iPhone and Apple has refused. The FBI has justified their reasoning by stating that the phone could have information that could help prevent future attacks but at the same time Apple stated their position that if they allow the FBI to get into the phone, it could allow them to get into the phones of other citizens when they want to. This has led to a legal battle between Apple and the government and has turned into a debate over privacy rights and how much power the government has when it comes to private matters.

Now this issue is a slippery slope and is an issue that each side could be considered “in the right”. I, for one, am actually torn on which side of this debate I am on due to the complication of the case. On one hand, this is a tragedy that should never happen again and if there is a way to stop similar attacks they should be taken. But at the same time, are we really willing to give up our constitutional rights and personal freedoms in the name of safety? This debate is similar to the debate over Patriot Act after 9/11 as well as brings up the idea of freedom vs. security.

One side of the argument would say that Apple should unlock the phone because after a terrorist attack, we should make sure that something like that never happens again. This attack was tragic and if there was even a chance that it could’ve been stopped, then it should’ve been taken. And if Farook was in line with a larger terrorist group like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, then the information they get off the iPhone could get an insight to any other attacks they are planning and could prevent them. This could help the FBI and the military find out more information on ISIS or Al-Qaeda’s leaders, they could find the names and locations and plots of these organizations and next time there is a planned attack, it could be prevented.

Now on the other side of the argument, if the FBI does get access to the phone, then there is the possibility that they can get into the phones of any citizen. In a similar fashion to the Patriot Act which was meant to spy on terrorist suspects, it ended up expanding to all citizens and allowed the government to spy on them and violate their civil rights. If you give the government power like this, there is no guarantee that they will use it for their original intentions. If there is a way the FBI could get into this phone, then they also have the ability to do this in the future and while they may state they will only use it for instances such as terrorism, who’s to say they will only use if for terrorism cases. Just like with the Patriot Act, the government stated they would only use it to spy on terrorists but ended up listening in on the conversations of the public.

Now both sides of the argument make compelling points on this issue. But what this really comes down to is if you are willing to give up your right to privacy to be safe. If the FBI can access one phone, they would be able to access any other phone and collect data on its citizens which is the argument that has been going on since the early 2000s and with the advancements in technology, brings up the question of how far our rights to privacy expand.