What are the links to the two sources reviewed?
The major link between the sources reviewed is the issue as to whether the United States government can force an information technology provider - in this case Apple - to develop a decryption code specific to one particular mobile phone. The model, the iPhone5C, in question belonged to one of the main perpetrators of the San Bernardino, California massacre on December 2, 2016, (Berman & Nakashima, 2016). The assault was the largest terrorist attack on U.S. territory since September 11, 2001.
What is the subject of these two articles and how are they related to one or more of the global challenge?
The relevancy of this paper addresses both information and governance. While the focus of both the Washington Post and Engaget articles is one particular mobile phone, the larger pressing issues noted in both articles are the rights to privacy vs. access by the U.S. government to personal data Engadget (Hardawar, 2016). Though challenges to private information has been a pressing issue since early on in the Internet information technology revolution, what specific data and how it is accessed by governmental agencies has most publically been at the forefront of societal norms within the last few years; and most especially since the December 2, 2016 San Bernardino attacks.
How are these two sources similar in the way they reported on this topic?
Both articles (noted above) essentially report on the same subject: access to personal data stored on an information technology platform, they also both note what the consequences of Apple providing a codes specific to access to the one phone owned by the terrorist in question,
James B. Comey, admitted in the March 1, 2016 House Judiciary Committee’s congressional
hearings that if Apple does indeed provide a “back-door” decryption code to unlock the password to this one particular iPhone, it may set a precedent for agents to request usage of that same code on other mobile phones.
How are these two sources different in the way they reported on this topic?
The Engaget article chose to utilize a more formal summary format towards the end of the article by more forcefully emphasizing what the consequences would be should Apple acquiesce to the FBI’s request. The Engaget article tended to quote more of Apple advocates such as Apple’s General Counsel Bruce Sewell and cybersecurity expert Susan Landau (“Susan Landau,” n.d.). Further, the Engaget article also chose to more clearly articulate the knowledgebase –with respect to information security – of that of several of the congressional delegates, by quoting their comments with respect to past none-Apple related information security breaches.
The Engaget article also chose to focus on how the FBI’s Director Comey was unaware of the previous day’s ruling by a New York judge that the government could not use an over three hundred year old law, “The All Writs Act” to supplement its’ request to Apple to provide written code and acquiesce to the FBI’s demainds.
Overall, the Washington Post chose to articulate a more general offering of information, with respect to the congressional hearings and the issue at hand – Apple vs. FBI and information vs. governance. With a much more detailed summary of the hearing and the issue, the Engaget article which chose to more squarely define, not just the issues at hand, but how participants within this legal entanglement were viewed their individual experiences and knowledge of information security technology.
References
Hardawar, Devindra. 2 March 2016. Engaget. Apple vs. the FBI: Catch up on the iPhone encryption hearings. Retrieved March 3, 2016 from http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/02/apple-fbi-encryption-congress-hearing/
Berman, M. and Nakashima, E. 2016 March 1. The Washington Post. FBI director: Victory in the fight with Apple could set a precedent, lead to more requests. Retrieved March 3, 2016 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/03/01/fbi-apple-bringing-fight-over-encryption-to-capitol-hill/
Privacy Ink. Susan Landau. Retrieved March 3, 2016 from http://privacyink.org/
