Back in 2015, a married couple by the names of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were found responsible for a terrorist bombing/mass shooting that left 14 people dead and another 22 people severely hurt in San Bernardino. For those that don’t know how Apple is involved with the terrorist attack, it lies in the fact that the terrorists were using iPhones. The U.S. government recovered the smartphones of the terrorists hoping they could gain valuable intelligence on any future terrorist attacks or some insight into how they planned their attack. The phones were locked and encrypted so it proved difficult to retrieve any useful information. The government turned to Apple to enlist their aid in breaking into their phones. Apple, believing this to be an invasion of privacy, declined to help the government.

Some might say that Apple was obstructing justice or just unpatriotic when they refused to help the government gain access to the terrorist phones. Apple has taken a firm stance in protecting their user’s privacy after hackers got into hundreds of accounts and stole nude photos of dozens of celebrities. Reiterating that security and privacy are of utmost importance to Apple, they stood firm in refusing to help the government. After their recent unveiling event they began their long trial against the government. Recently, the government has dropped the case stating, “no longer requires Apple’s assistance.” Which probably means the government got into those phones without the help of Apple. While the U.S. government did eventually crack the phones, this presents an interesting ethical dilemma. Which takes precedence? Security of users or do those rights become null and void when you become a criminal/terrorist? If the latter is the case, what other rights and civil liberties are suspended? Where does the law draw the line, or rather where should the law draw the line?