Author: yeezygod21

Bibliography-yeezygod21

Yaozong Ma. “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review | IJHSSR. 8 Oct 2016. Web. 8 Nov 2016. <http://www.ijhssrnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2.pdf >.

Background: This article talks about the scenario that was conducted when Federal Government wanted to access information on IPhone but they needed Apple support to override the security. However, Apple maintains to hold their stance of not exposing information to public because it would be a violation of privacy.

How I use it: I used this information to approach as my stance of how the government can be corrupt. Also, gives me factual support to make my reasoning stronger.

Craig Timberg and Greg Miller. “FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones.” Columbia Public Schools / Home. 25 Sep . Web. 8 Nov 2016. <http://www.cpsk12.org/cms/lib8/MO01909752/Centricity/Domain/5012/FBI%20blasts%20Apple%20Google%20for%20locking%20police%20out%20of%20phones.pdf

Background: This article states that how other companies are creating forms of smartphone encryption to secure from law enforcements. Apple and Google have already started to conduct this form on their latest smartphones. Apple and other companies want users to be safe and keep their privacy than taken away by the law.

How I use it: This is a very good article I would say because it’s not just Apple facing this problem it other cellular phone services are now being expose too.

Felix Wu. “Law and Technology No Easy Answers in the Fight Over iPhone Decryption .” Sep 2016. Web. 10 Nov 2016. <http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52095f5de4b0bc18c96d1924/t/57d6075944024343d19e1fc5/1473644381121/Wu+-+2016+-+No+easy+answers+in+the+fight+over+iPhone+decryption%282%29.pdf&gt;.

Background: Thoroughly explaining how the FBI took this event to trial. We can see how the FBI is desperate and they need legal matters to accommodate them. The FBI has forgotten that it unconstitutional of invading someone privacy. Apple is countering them with this stance.

How I use it: I used this article in my essay of how Apple reasoning was valid on how the exposure of privacy is unconstitutional.

Rebecca Knight. “National Security or Consumer Privacy? A Question Even Siri Couldn’t Answer.” University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications | University of Cincinnati College of Law Research. Sep 2016. Web. 10 Nov 2016. <http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=ipclj&gt;.

Background: Rebecca Knight manufactured a proposition on her stance; she speaks of how the government is corrupt in her essay.

How I use it: I used her proposition as example of how she manages to bring attention to the readers. I looked for the similarities and differences to our points.

Bohyun Kim. “Cybersecurity and digital surveillance versus usability and privacy .” College & Research Libraries News . 2016. Web. 12 Nov 2016. <http://crln.acrl.org/content/77/9/442.full&gt;.

Background: The article opens with the debates of Cyber security vs problem. One of the debates is Cybersecurity vs Privacy. The debate talks about how the people use technology every day is being monitored twenty-four seven. And gradually questions readers about if privacy actually exists or not.

How I use it: It makes my Casual Argument stronger because the claims that were given.

Staff, Digital Trends. “Apple vs. The FBI: A complete timeline of the war over tech encryption.” Digital Trends. Digital Trends, 3 Apr. 2016. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/

Background: 

This article helps me understand the case better. There is a list the events that occurred during that time frame.

How I use it: I used this to explain the case more specifically because some other articles were more direct. Hidden information may be lost with other website; however this one was detail in my opinion.

Nakashima, Ellen. “FBI Paid Professional Hackers One-Time Fee to Crack San Bernardino IPhone.” Washington Post. Washington Post, 12 Apr. 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-paid-professional-hackers-one-time-fee-to-crack-san-bernardino-iphone/2016/04/12/5397814a-00de-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html?utm_term=.51a5b025adcc

Background: The article is about of how FBI hired professional hackers to hack IPhone.

How I use it: This provides me try incorporate in my essay of how the FBI is desperate and wants justice.

Stavridis, Admiral Jim. “Apple Vs. FBI Is Not about Privacy Vs. Security — It’s about How to Achieve Both.” Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 8 Mar. 2016. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/admiral-jim-stavridis-ret/apple-fbi-privacy-security_b_9404314.html

Background: Talks about how Privacy and Security and be form together.

How I use it: This information I could talk about but its bias information and I can not use it to my advantage.

Hollister, Sean, et al. How an iPhone became the FBI’s public enemy no. 1 (FAQ). CNET, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-versus-the-fbi-why-the-lowest-priced-iphone-has-the-us-in-a-tizzy-faq/

Background: Apple has an enemy which the FBI. Certain cases like this FBI will try to attack Apple because there are so many consumers use IPhone.

How I use it: It will be incorporate in my casual argument and explain with further detail.

Modhy, Karrishma. “Apple Vs FBI: Here’s Why Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Others Side with Tim Cook – Tech2.” News & Analysis. TechFirstpost, 2 Mar. 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Background: Shows support from other companies in Tim Cook vs FBI. Tim cook is not alone there is team backing him up.

How I use it: To use information that Apple is not alone, third parties rising to this case.

Causal Rewrite-yeezygod21

The rights of Americans have been the country’s most treasured pursuit. To able to live in such a free nation has put a lot pressure on the government to protect our life styles. Our values as Americans have made us a target for terror to instill disbelief in our liberty. However, as Americans we stand together against those who oppose our rights. When analyzing the events at San Bernardino we understand that those who disagree with our way of life use it to their advantage to pursue a reality that does not already surround them. The FBI has made a request with the department of justice that would alert the world of technology consumers. A request that requires Apple to access information on an iPhone used by a terrorist. This request has brought the question of private security verse public security to the public.

Yaozong Ma in his article “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security,” claims “A cornerstone of the FBI’s argument was the All Writs Act which allowed courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Essentially, All Writs Act provides justification and authorization for courts to craft, enact, and implement orders which compel individuals to perform acts provided that reasoning is both necessary and legal. This shows that the FBI believes that they have the legal means to ask for assistance from a third party.

Craig Timberg and Greg Miller in their article “FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones,” report the motives of FBI Director James B. Comey wanting Apple to comply with their request. Comey states that, “He could not understand why companies would market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” His reasoning is based on the assumption that apple only caters to the top percent of people who can afford their products. Protecting their private information is what made their company so great to their customers. He defends his stance on protecting the public; moreover it is such a hard stance he forgets that private privacy is just as important to the public. Apple has been known to sell the most exclusive hardware since the beginning of their company. Handling this situation can predict the future of the company.

Felix Wu in his article, “No Easy Answers in the Fight over iPhone decryption.” examples why the FBI’s request is undeserved of a warrant. He states, “Apple’s primary constitutional argument was that compelling its assistance would violate the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The argument is seductively simple, almost syllogistic. Step one: courts have previously recognized computer code as a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Step two: the Supreme Court has long held that the government can violate the First Amendment not only by restricting someone’s speech, but also by compelling someone to speak. Ergo, forcing Apple to write code that it did not want to write would be compelling it to speak, in violation of the First Amendment.” No company should be forced to be responsible for the fallout caused by their product. The company itself has no connection to the events that lead to the creation of the warranted evidence.

Rebecca Knight, in her article “National Security or Consumer Privacy, A Question even Siri couldn’t answer.” states several other reasons as to why Apple should not be involved with a FBI Investigation. She claims, “Apple’s argument was that Congress, not the courts, should determine when a third-party must be compelled to assist in investigations conducted by the government. Apple contended that if the technology that the Government wants were to be created, millions of people would be at risk of having their personal data hacked at no fault of their own but rather as a consequence of Farook’s act of terrorism.” Knight believes, “Legally, Apple argues that the Order had no statutory basis and violated the Constitution. First, Apple contended that its connection to the underlying case was too far removed to compel assistance.”  According to Apple, the technical assistance sought would be much more vast and complicated than simply pushing a few buttons, as the Government seemed to believe.  Apple argued that the Government did not demonstrate that Apple’s assistance was necessary to effectuate the warrant. Moreover, the Government made no showing of whether or not it sought or received technical assistance from other federal agencies with expertise in digital forensics, which could negate the need for Apple to create a backdoor into the iPhone. This lack of motivation allows Apple to devalue the FBI’s request for assistance. Next, Apple argued that compliance with the Order would violate the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Specifically, the Government asked the court to compel Apple to write new software that would eliminate safety features built into the iPhone in response to consumer. Knight continued by saying, “Apple contends that the Order amounted to compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination. Under established law, computer code is treated like speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Thus, whenever the Government seeks to compel speech, the First Amendment is triggered. Compelled speech can only be upheld if it is narrowly tailored to obtain a compelling state interest. In this instance, the Government could not meet this high standard. Finally, Apple argued that investigating terrorism was a legitimate interest; the government only produced speculative evidence that Farook’s iPhone might contain relevant information. Without the right boundaries to connect Apple to investigation, complying with the FBI should to be a business transaction rather than a court order. However, Apple has no plans with allow the FBI to gain access to their encryption code. They wish to stand alone as an American company trying to protect the privacy of the American people.”

Work Cited

Yaozong Ma. “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review | IJHSSR. 8 Oct 2016. Web. 8 Nov 2016. <http://www.ijhssrnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2.pdf >.

Craig Timberg and Greg Miller. “FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones.” Columbia Public Schools / Home. 25 Sep . Web. 8 Nov 2016. http://www.cpsk12.org/cms/lib8/MO01909752/Centricity/Domain/5012/FBI%20blasts%20Apple%20Google%20for%20locking%20police%20out%20of%20phones.pdf

Felix Wu. “Law and Technology No Easy Answers in the Fight Over iPhone Decryption .” Sep 2016. Web. 10 Nov 2016. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52095f5de4b0bc18c96d1924/t/57d6075944024343d19e1fc5/1473644381121/Wu+-+2016+-+No+easy+answers+in+the+fight+over+iPhone+decryption%282%29.pdf&gt

Rebecca Knight. “National Security or Consumer Privacy? A Question Even Siri Couldn’t Answer.” University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications | University of Cincinnati College of Law Research. Sep 2016. Web. 10 Nov 2016. <http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=ipclj&gt;.

 

 

Research Paper-yeezygod21

 

Smartphones have been a great advancement in technology and in society. Like any other tool they help us with our daily tasks such as keeping us close to public safety officials, allowing us the ability to transfer money that helps us manage our lifestyles, and being able to check the safety of our families with a push of a button. Having the ability to talk to someone miles away has made life convenient and full of contentment for modern day people. It is safe to say that the phone is one of the most important tools ever made along with electricity, the telescope, and the wheel. The practice of sending information has been a valuable assist to forming society since the renaissance. To be able to inform people can be the difference between life and death in a state of war. The phone is another staple to humanity such as U.S presidents are to the development of America.

However, not all presidents are helpful -to the well-being of the country as such not all uses of phones are beneficial to our daily lives. Recently phones have been the bane of our daily progression as we constantly check our phones as we work. Our phones have been given as much responsibility to their owners as their owners’ function in society. Moreover phones help us get things done. Now think for a moment about how someone could use that tool that helps you with getting things done with different intentions for its uses than to its owner’s purpose.

There you have an issue; the privacy of one’s belongings is one of the most sought-after luxuries humanity has set for itself. The foundation of America was fought for the individual privacy to practice any religion. Forward two hundred and forty years into the future and we find us with a similar conflict with individual ownership boundaries.

Most recently this conflict has been brought to light with news of terrorism in America. In 2015, a terrorist attack occurred in San Bernardino, California. The terrorist attack was a mass shooting carried out by a Pakistani couple that aimed their sights at a San Bernardino county department of public health Christmas party, where 16 people were killed and 24 people suffered non-fatal injuries. After being pursued the couples were killed in a shootout with police. In all, a total of 40 people were harmed with the intent of causing terror in America. While investigating the remains of the couple, the FBI found an Apple IPhone that is understood to hold information on the couples’ activities.

The modern day conflict with privacy was that the FBI wanted Apple to open the IPhone encrypted system to investigate the information that it holds. How does one feel when their government pursues access to one of the most powerful tools in the current age? Giving the FBI that kind of power is a serious bridge of trust. The FBI has made a case with the Department of Justice that would put Apple in the position to hold responsibility of the phones property having been the manufacturer. Apple being the entity that it is was adamant to allow the case to follow through without debate first. The company stands against the FBI when considering how much power they could give the government with just one case to decrypt a single iPhone.

Beyond this instance the government can use this knowledge to perform whatever surveillance deemed useful, which is a lot of power. The debate over whether Apple can be held accountable for its products second party uses after developing an issue with a third party can show the conflict of interest between the American people and the consumers of technology.

The rights of Americans have been the country’s most treasured pursuit. To able to live in such a free nation has put a lot pressure on the government to protect our life styles. Our values as Americans have made us a target for terror to instill disbelief in our liberty. However, as Americans we stand together against those who oppose our rights. When analyzing the events at San Bernardino we understand that those who disagree with our way of life use it to their advantage to pursue a reality that does not already surround them. The FBI has made a request with the department of justice that would alert the world of technology consumers. A request that requires Apple to access information on an iPhone used by a terrorist. This request has brought the question of private security verse public security to the public.

Yaozong Ma in his article “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security,” claims “A cornerstone of the FBI’s argument was the All Writs Act which allowed courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Essentially, All Writs Act provides justification and authorization for courts to craft, enact, and implement orders which compel individuals to perform acts provided that reasoning is both necessary and legal. This shows that the FBI believes that they have the legal means to ask for assistance from a third party.

Craig Timberg and Greg Miller in their article “FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones,” report the motives of FBI Director James B. Comey wanting Apple to comply with their request. Comey states that, “He could not understand why companies would market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” His reasoning is based on the assumption that apple only caters to the top percent of people who can afford their products. Protecting their private information is what made their company so great to their customers. He defends his stance on protecting the public; moreover it is such a hard stance he forgets that private privacy is just as important to the public. Apple has been known to sell the most exclusive hardware since the beginning of their company. Handling this situation can predict the future of the company.

Felix Wu in his article, “No Easy Answers in the Fight over iPhone decryption.” examples why the FBI’s request is undeserved of a warrant. He states, “Apple’s primary constitutional argument was that compelling its assistance would violate the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The argument is seductively simple, almost syllogistic. Step one: courts have previously recognized computer code as a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Step two: the Supreme Court has long held that the government can violate the First Amendment not only by restricting someone’s speech, but also by compelling someone to speak. Ergo, forcing Apple to write code that it did not want to write would be compelling it to speak, in violation of the First Amendment.” No company should be forced to be responsible for the fallout caused by their product. The company itself has no connection to the events that lead to the creation of the warranted evidence.

Rebecca Knight, in her article “National Security or Consumer Privacy, A Question even Siri couldn’t answer.” states several other reasons as to why Apple should not be involved with a FBI Investigation. She claims, “Apple’s argument was that Congress, not the courts, should determine when a third-party must be compelled to assist in investigations conducted by the government. Apple contended that if the technology that the Government wants were to be created, millions of people would be at risk of having their personal data hacked at no fault of their own but rather as a consequence of Farook’s act of terrorism.” Knight believes, “Legally, Apple argues that the Order had no statutory basis and violated the Constitution. First, Apple contended that its connection to the underlying case was too far removed to compel assistance.”  According to Apple, the technical assistance sought would be much more vast and complicated than simply pushing a few buttons, as the Government seemed to believe.  Apple argued that the Government did not demonstrate that Apple’s assistance was necessary to effectuate the warrant. Moreover, the Government made no showing of whether or not it sought or received technical assistance from other federal agencies with expertise in digital forensics, which could negate the need for Apple to create a backdoor into the iPhone. This lack of motivation allows Apple to devalue the FBI’s request for assistance. Next, Apple argued that compliance with the Order would violate the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Specifically, the Government asked the court to compel Apple to write new software that would eliminate safety features built into the iPhone in response to consumer. Knight continued by saying, “Apple contends that the Order amounted to compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination. Under established law, computer code is treated like speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Thus, whenever the Government seeks to compel speech, the First Amendment is triggered. Compelled speech can only be upheld if it is narrowly tailored to obtain a compelling state interest. In this instance, the Government could not meet this high standard. Finally, Apple argued that investigating terrorism was a legitimate interest; the government only produced speculative evidence that Farook’s iPhone might contain relevant information. Without the right boundaries to connect Apple to investigation, complying with the FBI should to be a business transaction rather than a court order. However, Apple has no plans with allow the FBI to gain access to their encryption code. They wish to stand alone as an American company trying to protect the privacy of the American people.”

In addition, new developments in the San Bernardino case, days before the trail gave the FBI a different path towards unlocking the IPhone. The FBI was contacted by a third party who discovered a new method of accessing  the information on the IPhone linked to the terrorist. Now that the FBI has the knowledge to unlock iPhone, they can apply this information to other suspected cases of terrorism. However with this new development does Apple have the grounds to ask the FBI to explain their weakness in their hardware.

The bottom line is that tech company’s care about their customer’s option on the matter of private privacy. The public understands the need for a relaxed state of ownership when buying a piece of hardware. We live in a free country after all, can’t that freedom extend further than just the grounds we walk on. Our phone and the space within our phone is the new wild west of our country. This time is a new era for the government to explore the constitutional rights of a new land, the land of technology. The government was not able to push Apple into complying with the FBI’s investigation and took a stand against the superpower that is our government. If Apple were to comply with our government, who’s to say china would not ask for the same type of assistance with an investigation. If we cannot trust our country with our issues it is safe to say that it is not right for any company to comply with a government whose ambitions are ambiguous.

Work Cited

Yaozong Ma. “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review | IJHSSR. 8 Oct 2016. Web. 8 Nov 2016. <http://www.ijhssrnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2.pdf >.

Craig Timberg and Greg Miller. “FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones.” Columbia Public Schools / Home. 25 Sep . Web. 8 Nov 2016. http://www.cpsk12.org/cms/lib8/MO01909752/Centricity/Domain/5012/FBI%20blasts%20Apple%20Google%20for%20locking%20police%20out%20of%20phones.pdf

Felix Wu. “Law and Technology No Easy Answers in the Fight Over iPhone Decryption .” Sep 2016. Web. 10 Nov 2016. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52095f5de4b0bc18c96d1924/t/57d6075944024343d19e1fc5/1473644381121/Wu+-+2016+-+No+easy+answers+in+the+fight+over+iPhone+decryption%282%29.pdf&gt

Rebecca Knight. “National Security or Consumer Privacy? A Question Even Siri Couldn’t Answer.” University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications | University of Cincinnati College of Law Research. Sep 2016. Web. 10 Nov 2016. <http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=ipclj&gt;.

 

 

 

Reflective-yeezygod21

Core Value I. My work demonstrates that I used a variety of social and interactive practices that involve recursive stages of exploration, discovery, conceptualization, and development.

This semester was a very challenging time than my previous years.  Mr. Hodge’s teaching approach is really tough and the work that he criticizes was difficult as well. He introduced me to new methods of the writing process that expanded my knowledge of the craft. He still manages to find errors in my work however; I can still be proud of my writing because I come to him with new ideas that allow him to better understand my writing style. He commented and gave me a lot of feedback on one piece of writing that was the Stone Money Rewrite. In the Stone Money Rewrite I made a lot of changes to make my piece more analytic. Mr. Hodge recommended that I should be more transparent and add details to make my point valid; also he suggested that I use abstract ideas and concepts to widen my range of my writing flexibility. I now understand why Mr Hodges kept pushing me to rewrite my material. In my previous experience I would rewrite my piece of work just 2-3 times. But David Hodges made me go further depth in my writing.

Core Value II. My work demonstrates that I placed texts into conversation with one another to create meaning by synthesizing ideas from various discourse communities. 

Second, I demonstrated the Core Value II by using a technique for concrete examples to illustrate abstract concepts, just like how Cows and Chips were assigned in my Stone Money Rewrite. I used this example of “how friend play poker with a set number of poker chips, you can only play until one of you loses all their chips. By adding fake chips to your lot, you can draw more hands until you break even or win. Edman allowed Brazil to continue their economic game by creating more opportunities for his country to be active in the business world.” I am very content of my work on this piece because the poker analogy made sense to of how Brazil used fake money. Now I realized of how to concrete examples to illustrate abstract concepts can help my writing. My writing will be more creative, not boring. Readers will actually enjoy it and think about of what abstract ideas that I came up with.

Core Value III. My work demonstrates that I rhetorically analyzed the purpose, audience, and contexts of my own writing and other texts and visual arguments.

 

I had trouble of picking a topic that I can truly write about. Later, I found that I should write about of how smart phones are distracting. However, when I proposed this idea to Mr. Hodges he insisted that my topic is not bad or good it’s in the middle. I took that advice and I thought of a new topic which is about should the government have the control to override someone privacy.  In this piece of writing Definition Argument shows my stance on how the government should not have control of accessing privacy. I knew that if I can pick a write topic I can write about it because I am capable of doing that.

Core Value IV: My work demonstrates that I have met the expectations of academic writing by locating, evaluating, and incorporating illustrations and evidence to support my own ideas and interpretations.

I displayed core value four in the Definition Argument Rewrite, “Defintion Rewrite” I’ve met the some expectations of academic writing in my Definition Argument because I stated my position of this topic and presented of my stance in the thesis. I should’ve asked Professor Hodges on this this topic whether if this a valid input or not. I should have listed more sources to show where I got the information. But overall, the content that I have I am satisfied. I felt like I explained thoroughly and get to the reader’s attention.

 

Core Value V. My work demonstrates that I respect my ethical responsibility to represent complex ideas fairly and to the sources of my information with appropriate citation. 

I feel I did the best job for this core value because I properly citing my sources and trying to interpret the text critically. In class, when Mr. Hodges taught one class on how appropriately   to cite sources in the text. I took that time wisely so then for the future I will have the knowledge to cite properly.  In the text that I manage to cite well is in Stone Money Rewrite. In this I took the sources that were given and talk about it. I gave credit on who wrote the material and then I interrupt on my own way. I am fully satisfied with this Core value than the others ones.

Definition Rewrite-yeezygod21

 

Smartphones have been a great advancement in technology and in society. Like any other tool they help us with our daily tasks such as keeping us close to public safety officials, allowing us the ability to transfer money that helps us manage our lifestyles, and being able to check the safety of our families with a push of a button. Having the ability to talk to someone miles away has made life convenient and full of contentment for modern day people. It is safe to say that the phone is one of the most important tools ever made along with electricity, the telescope, and the wheel. The practice of sending information has been a valuable assist to forming society since the renaissance. To be able to inform people can be the difference between life and death in a state of war. The phone is another staple to humanity such as U.S presidents are to the development of America.

However, not all presidents are helpful -to the well-being of the country as such not all uses of phones are beneficial to our daily lives. Recently phones have been the bane of our daily progression as we constantly check our phones as we work. Our phones have been given as much responsibility to their owners as their owners’ function in society. Moreover phones help us get things done. Now think for a moment about how someone could use that tool that helps you with getting things done with different intentions for its uses than to its owner’s purpose.

There you have an issue; the privacy of one’s belongings is one of the most sought-after luxuries humanity has set for itself. The foundation of America was fought for the individual privacy to practice any religion. Forward two hundred and forty years into the future and we find us with a similar conflict with individual ownership boundaries.

Most recently this conflict has been brought to light with news of terrorism in America. In 2015, a terrorist attack occurred in San Bernardino, California. The terrorist attack was a mass shooting carried out by a Pakistani couple that aimed their sights at a San Bernardino county department of public health Christmas party, where 16 people were killed and 24 people suffered non-fatal injuries. After being pursued the couples were killed in a shootout with police. In all, a total of 40 people were harmed with the intent of causing terror in America. While investigating the remains of the couple, the FBI found an Apple IPhone that is understood to hold information on the couples’ activities.

The modern day conflict with privacy was that the FBI wanted Apple to open the IPhone encrypted system to investigate the information that it holds. How does one feel when their government pursues access to one of the most powerful tools in the current age? Giving the FBI that kind of power is a serious bridge of trust. The FBI has made a case with the Department of Justice that would put Apple in the position to hold responsibility of the phones property having been the manufacturer. Apple being the entity that it is was adamant to allow the case to follow through without debate first. The company stands against the FBI when considering how much power they could give the government with just one case to decrypt a single iPhone.

Beyond this instance the government can use this knowledge to perform whatever surveillance deemed useful, which is a lot of power. The debate over whether Apple can be held accountable for its products second party uses after developing an issue with a third party can show the conflict of interest between the American people and the consumers of technology.

 

Yaozong Ma. “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review | IJHSSR. 8 Oct 2016. Web. 8 Nov 2016. <http://www.ijhssrnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2.pdf >

 

 

Robust Subjects and Verbs-yeezygod21

Vancouver has a huge problem with heroin addicts committing crimes to support their habits. The “free heroin for addicts” program has been doing everything they can to stop the addicts. The large crime rate has been linked to the addicts. Addicts have a hard time getting through their day to day lives. Daily activities such as working, interacting with people, and relationships are hard to maintain since drugs are being used. Heroin users will do whatever it takes to obtain the drug. Crimes such as breaking and entering have been the go to way for addicts to fund the addictions. During these times nothing will stand in the way of an addict when trying to retrieve drugs to feed their addiction. This program is not favored for they don’t wean their addicts off using heroin. To save the city from rising crime rates that they’re up to. While providing the drug, these addicts will be off the streets, which in turn will prevent them from committing minor street crimes. To keep the heroin users out of the hospitals is an uphill battle. Hospitals having to deal with people that want to use bad drugs or unsanitary needles, find themselves being unable to afford hospital bills and hard to cope without the drug. This gives people in the program free heroin in the cleanest way possible. It has the potential to fix the city, but not the addiction that is faced.

But Enough About You-yeezygod21

Money has a big role in our society. One cannot do much or get far in life if money wasn’t a necessity. Money is valuable in different ways, even when it is not seen physically. In today’s society there needs to be faith in the government and in the banking system that money is being handled within the proper manner, if not, other measures would have to be taken to handle money. Money is thought to be simple; it’s either obtained, or it is not. However, being introduced to this assignment, the Yap Fei, US gold, French francs, Brazilian cruzeros, and debit accounts now seem similar. No one can actually see money being transferred. When people get paid, it is generally direct deposited into a bank account.

Causal Argument- yeezygod21

The rights of Americans have been the country’s most treasured pursuit. To able to live in such a free nation has put a lot pressure on the government to protect our life styles. Our values as Americans have made us a target for terror to instill disbelief in our liberty. However, as Americans we stand together against those who oppose our rights. When analyzing the events at San Bernardino we understand that those who disagree with our way of life use it to their advantage to pursue a reality that does not already surround them. The FBI has made a request with the department of justice that would alert the world of technology consumers. A request that requires Apple to access information on an iPhone used by a terrorist. This request has brought the question of private security verse public security to the public. (1) In, “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security by Yaozong Ma states, “A cornerstone of the FBI‟s argument was the All Writs Act which allowed courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law” (Limer, 2016). Essentially, All Writs Act provides justification and authorization for courts to craft, enact, and implement orders which compel individuals to perform acts provided that reasoning is both necessary and legal (Limer, 2016).” This shows that the FBI believes that they have the legal means to ask for assistance from a third party. (2) In FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones, by Craig Timberg and Greg Miller report the motives of FBI Director James B. Comey wanting Apple to comply with their request. Comey states that, “He could not understand why companies would market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” His reasoning is based on the assumption that apple only caters to the top percent of people who can afford their products. Protecting their private information is what made their company so great to their customers. He defends his stance on protecting the public; moreover it is such a hard stance he forgets that private privacy is just as important to the public. Apple has been known to sell the most exclusive hardware since the beginning of their company.

Definition Argument-yeezygod21

Smartphones have been a great advancement in technology and in society. Like any other tool they help us with our daily tasks such as keeping us close to public safety officials, allowing us the ability to transfer money that helps us manage our lifestyles, and being able to check the safety of our families with a push of a button. Having the ability to talk to someone miles away has made life convenient and full of contentment for modern day people. It is safe to say that the phone is one of the most important tools ever made along with electricity, the telescope, and the wheel.

The practice of sending information has been a valuable assist to forming society since the renaissance. To be able to inform, people can be the difference between life and death in a state of war. The phone is another staple to humanity such as U.S presidents are to the development of America. However, not all presidents are helpful -to the well being of the country as such not all uses of phones are beneficial to our daily lives. Recently phones have been the bane of our daily progression as we constantly check our phones as we work. Our phones have been given as much responsibility to their owners as their owners’ function in society. Moreover, phones help us get things done. Now think for a moment about how someone could use that tool that helps you with getting things done with different intentions for its uses than to its owner’s purpose. There you have an issue; the privacy of one’s belongings is one of the most sought-after luxuries humanity has set for itself. The foundation of America was fought for the individual privacy to practice any religion. Forward two hundred and forty years into the future and we find us with a similar conflict with individual ownership boundaries. Most recently this conflict has been brought to light with news of terrorism in America. In 2015, a terrorist attack occurred in San Bernardino, California. The terrorist attack was a mass shooting carried out by a Pakistani couple that aimed their sights at a San Bernardino country department of public health Christmas party, where 16 people were killed and 24 people suffered non-fatal injuries. After being pursued the couple were killed in a shoot out with police. In all, a total of 40 people were harmed with the intent of causing terror in America. While investigating the remains of the couple, the FBI found an Apple Iphone that is understood to hold information on the couples’ activities. The modern day conflict with privacy was that the FBI wanted Apple to open the Iphones encrypted system to investigate the information that it holds. How does one feel when their government pursues access to one of the most powerful tools in the current age? Giving the FBI that kind of power is a serious bridge of trust. The FBI has made a case with the Department of Justice that would put Apple in the position to hold responsibility of the phones property having been the manufacturer. Apple being the entity that it is was adamant to allow the case to follow through without debate first. The company stands against the FBI when considering how much power they could give the government with just one case to decrypt a single iphone. Beyond this instance the government can use this knowledge to perform whatever surveillance deemed useful, which is a lot of power. The debate over whether Apple can be held accountable for it’s products second party uses after developing an issue with a third party can show the conflict of interest between the American people and the consumers of technology

Safer Saws-yeezygod21

Manufacturers

  • “I found out that table saws cause thousands of these really horrible injuries every year.”

This claim tells us that a regular saw causes severe injuries every year.

  • When you cutting wood, the blade carries the electric signal when the finger approaches to the blade the signal is changed because the human body is conductive. The blade will immediately stop.
  • “It feel like it buzz or a tickle”

This is factual claim because in the video we see how when the finger is placed near the saw, the saw stops immediately with a slight vibration to the finger or a tickle.

This claim is accurate because when we watch the video we saw the experiment and how the technology works. The technology that was being used was brilliant due to how when the blade encounters with the human body at five thousand rpms energy it stops the module like crumple zone and car. The claim looks convincing because observers can see that this technology is legit product. On the contrary the claim, looks not as deserving because videos tend to be fake occasionally. It perhaps can be a setup where we do believe it can work.

Amputees/Customers

  • “Try a $14 thousand bill for a missing finger and tell me how much you hate Mr. Gass.”
  • “I lost a finger and half the use of my hand in a table saw accident the cost of a cartridge a new blade is well worth having that safety.”
  • “At an average cost of $35,000 each, these accidents lead to more than $2.3 billion in societal costs annually including medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.”

This claim is demonstrating of how losing a finger is greater cost than spending another saw blade. The differential value of cost is off the charts.

This claim is factual and opinion because it’s true losing a finger is too costly and medical bill will expensive. You would rather pay $100 extra than paying 20,000-40,000. Adding on, its opinion base to because there can be other saws similar to this technology where it can have no problems at all.

Customers 

  • “But as well as the technology works, the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws — even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them.”

This claim demonstrates of how companies did not feel as confident to put Grass’ invention on shelves.

This is a factual claim.

We see the brilliancy of Grass’ technology but however the big name companies show signs of disbelief  because it far too great of technology to be worthy of that caliber kind. And trying to sell this product would be hard because consumers would not have a strong belief and uncertainty questions.

 

Steve Gass himself

  • Steve Gass creates new saw called SafeStop, a saw reduces serious injuries where the saw stops when a finger is encounter with the saw.
  •        Steve Gass experiments to prove that it works by using a hotdog as finger.
  • Technology contains electric signal that contradicts with the human body.

This claim is prospal where he introduces his new technology.

Steve Gass proposed this idea and made it into a reality. A saw that decreases horrifying injuries than typical saw. Steve Gass used a hotdog to impersonate a finger to present viewers that the technology is legit. Furthermore, Steve Gass used his own finger to bring more attention to viewers that it this actually works with human finger, not just a hotdog.

Injured Plaintiffs

  • “Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

This claim shows how the saw can be dangerous in psychological way not just only a physical way.

The claim I feel is opinion based and accurate.

The reason why I feel this claim is opinion base because it can affect only some people in psychological way  instead of just physical. However, this claim can be accurate because this is also concerning of what this type of saw can do. The physical threat is horrifying et enough and now psychological is astonishing.

Personal Injury Lawyers

  • “Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.”

This claim specifies of how manufacturers have not experienced the SawStop even more than 10 years.

The claim is factual evaluation.

The claim is subpar it has the fact where it’s been around more than ten years and manufactures have not adopted it. But the question is what is all table saw manufacturers are adopting on if not SawStop. Are the manufacturers are investing their time on traditional saws with physical and psychological risks. And are they ignoring SawStop for a reason where they feel it’s the technology is too good to be true.

Government Officials 

Approximately 42,800 medically attended injuries annually during 2007–2008, rather than the 67,000 estimated in the CPSC ANPR.

This is claim is factual.

This claim is factual because this was case study of how many people were affected. There were a lot of cases that lead to look foward about SaferSaw. Thousands of people were getting hurt on daily basis. The numbers stand out because it similar how a small thing can cause so much havoc and can be debatable such as car accidents and etc of which is more dangerous.

Power Tool Product Reviewers

  •  “Sawstop quality control is the best in the business. My Sawstop is superior in materials and build to any Delta or Powermatic I’ve used.”

This claim is to tell us that SawStop is valid saw that can protect people fingers. And seems this technology is worth it. The money is not the issue, its for the safety.

This claim is opinion base.

The claim is opinion base because it states one person saying that the product is marvelous. And it implies directly to him of how he is satisfied with the technology. However, this claim not as strong because its opinion base because others may prefer other saws.