Joshua Coon
Christian. Student. Photographer.
Last week, I blogged about the data from a Fitbit being used to convict a man, who allegedly shot his wife in the back, of murder. In summary, the man, Richard Dabate, shot his wife twice from behind and then fabricated a break-in story in which he claimed “a ‘tall, obese man’ with a deep voice like actor Vin Diesel’s and wearing ‘camouflage and a mask,’” [1] assaulted him and then killed his wife. Along with other evidence, the data from Mrs. Dabate’s Fitbit was enough to convict. Relating to Fitbit, in an article published today (May 5th, 2017), “Apple topples Fitbit as the world's top wearable company.” [2] This article peaked my interest because of Apple’s history with not disclosing the data stored within its devices. For instance, Apple refused to meet the FBI’s demands to unlock the iPhones of the terrorists who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, CA. [3] After the terrorist attack, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began searching for ways to unlock the killer’s phones. A federal judge ordered Apple to unlock the phones, but Apple refused. Ultimately, the FBI managed to crack the iPhone’s security measures within months. Back to the more recent Fitbit case, consider the difference in case outcomes. Although not as heavily encrypted, we didn’t hear any resistance from Fitbit regarding law enforcement extracting user data from one of their devices. This raises the question as to what role companies must play in criminal cases involving their devices. Honestly, in this blog, it’s hard for me to come to a conclusion as to what approach companies should take: the Fitbit approach, or the Apple approach. Apple took the stance based on strong principles of a utilitarianist approach, where Fitbit took a justice approach. But the contrast between the two cases doesn’t mean one is better than the other. Maybe each case was addressed appropriately due to their differences in ethical approaches. Whether justice or utilitarian, consequential or non-consequential, the necessity to discuss these matters is evident. More and more, our society is facing bigger and bigger problems regarding ethics in tech. As critical thinkers and contributors to society, we must keep a close watch on the various ethical developments that continue to pop up in our society.
10 Comments
Araceli Gopar
5/7/2017 10:09:14 pm
Hello Joshua,
Reply
Adrienne Horca
5/8/2017 11:28:07 am
Joshua,
Reply
Ian Kindall
5/8/2017 09:59:33 pm
In my opinion, getting access to a persons phone should be within the rights of the police, as long a a warrant is required. If the police have enough evidence to get a warrant to enter your house they should be able to access your phone as well. No back-doors into phones though, that is just asking for trouble.
Reply
Stephen Negron
5/11/2017 07:41:03 pm
I also agree that the police should have the right to enter the phone if they had a warrant. I just don't want the encryption secret to be exposed to malicious users.
Reply
5/9/2017 12:24:58 am
Hi, Joshua.
Reply
Sean O'Fallon
5/9/2017 09:59:40 am
As long as the FBI or whoever is conducting the investigation have a warrant, I don't think the companies should be allowed to refuse. If there is a criminal investigation, it seems like the obvious choice to provide data that could help solve the case or convict a guilty party.
Reply
Stephen Negron
5/11/2017 07:39:42 pm
Hello Joshua,
Reply
Angela Bomarito
5/11/2017 09:53:09 pm
Hi Joshua, I think that if the FBI has a warrant to gather information for a legitimate reason (such as the murder case), then Apple should not have been allowed to refuse as they are interfering with a criminal case. There should definitely not be back doors in all iPhones, but if the data needs to be accessed for reasons like this, I'm sure it can be attained and should be attained for the right reasons.
Reply
Joseph Molina
5/17/2017 07:10:33 pm
Joshua,
Reply
5/20/2017 04:34:15 pm
That is crazy that a FitBit can have such data that exposed a murder case. I think the ethical approach of Apple is a complicated one, but I think they mean well in upholding their stance in user privacy.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
|