"U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone" By Lisl Wangermann Period 1

Katie Benner and Matt Apuzzo's article "U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple's Help to Unlock iPhone" was published by the New York Times on March 21, 2016. After heated debate over whether Apple should be forced to create software to unlock the phone used by the San Bernardino shooter, the government announced that a third party has stepped forward that could possibly unlock the phone without Apple's help. Court has now been delayed to explore this unforeseen option. Apple has said that they would like to know more about this anonymous third party and about its ways of bypassing Apple's system.

It will be interesting to see whether this third party is able to break into the phone. If it cannot, it would mean that court would resume, which would force a clarification of the law on the subject of technological privacy. On the other hand, if they succeed, it would mean that Apple has a severe hole in their system and it would stop the debate on this important issue. This issue somewhat reminds me of the Espionage and Sedition Acts that accompanied World War I because although they clearly violated personal rights, some claimed that they were necessary in times of severe danger. Some today would say that we are currently in a time of severe danger and that in order to properly fight terrorism, Apple should be forced to bypass their own security. The court's decision on the case could signify a huge change in privacy policies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/technology/apple-fbi-hearing-unlock-iphone.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well