Poll: Apple Should Help FBI Unlock Terrorism Suspect’s iPhone

ap_704532224211_custom-cf696fba355d1dd2273d9bdd5604b33454259803-s800-c85

When it comes to the dispute over San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook’s iPhone, new findings show that public support is on the side of the Justice Department.

Data from the Pew Research Center show that 51 percent of Americans think Apple should cooperate with a federal court order. Another 38 percent say Apple should not help, while 11 percent say that they don’t know.

Pew asked people whether Apple should unlock the iPhone, which is not actually what the court requested. Rather, the court asked Apple to help the FBI bypass an auto-erase function that would be triggered after 10 incorrect password attempts. Pew Senior Researcher Alec Tyson defended the poll’s wording, saying that “this reflects our best judgment about the clearest way to ask the question.”

Among Americans who support Apple’s decision, 43 percent are between age 18 and 29. Among those age 65 and up, only 27 percent think Apple shouldn’t comply with the order.

The poll also revealed that 39 percent said they had heard a lot about the court order, 36 percent said they had heard a little and 24 percent said they hadn’t heard about it at all. Of Americans polled who own an iPhone, 47 percent said Apple should help the government and 43 percent said they agree with the company’s decision to disobey the order.

[via WSJ Digital]

A software engineer with a passion for creation and innovation using technology. To learn more about me, check out my personal website, which contains links to my projects. Email: nick@iphoneincanada.ca

  • KIII

    Next they will want live monitoring of Siri request for certain words or phrases.

  • FragilityG4

    Open it up … Privacy became a myth several years ago … Terrorism and innocent people dying because of it is all too much a reality – one persons life is worth one persons privacy.

  • Cornfed710

    At least the propaganda still works

  • FragilityG4

    Lose someone you love to the cowardly acts of terrorism and you’ll be singing a different song.

  • Cornfed710

    Shoot, I forgot this will bring back dead loved ones.

    This is fear mongering at its best.

  • Chris

    The 2 terrorists were smart enough to use 2 burner phones (to which they destroyed). Does anyone think they were dumb enough to use an employer given phone to plan these attacks on?

    To anyone using the “well if it was your family member that died”, lets just put cameras in everyone’s home, that should stop the terrorists, right? /sarcasm

  • That’s a tough decision.
    Allowing even the slightest access at key moments always follows by a forward motion.

    You allow them once in a high priority case, tomorrow they’ll ask again

    Then they’ll do it for public safety reasons on the war on terror, blah blah blah.

    Then it’ll become common pactice when they think everyone forgot about all this none sense, and everyone is crawling over the next media inflated spectical

  • xxxJDxxx

    But you’ll also have a compromised and biased opinion.

  • FragilityG4

    And people who want this phone to not be open don’t?

  • xxxJDxxx

    No. Certainly not to the same degree as someone who has ‘lost someone they love.’

  • FragilityG4

    I much rather be on the side that looks at preventing further loss of life … But hey that’s me, I guess I just have this thing where I want people to live and not die needlessly especially in the name of “privacy”.

  • Joseph

    So would it be ok to have cameras in your house with microphones on 24/7? And full access to your computer and mobile devices any time? And have no idea who is listening, watching and recording you?
    You would be ok with that?

  • FragilityG4

    I’m sorry you’ll have to enlighten me, I didn’t read that proposition … I thought we were talking about getting into one terrorists phone in hopes of extracting evidence to further thwart future terrorist attacks …..

  • hub2

    Carol Adams, who *actually* lost her son in this very terrorist act and is therefore among those you’d think would be singing your tune… disagrees with you and backs Apple’s stance against the FBI demands.

  • FragilityG4

    What do the rest say??

  • voodoo_ca

    I think that part of the problem is more about what this means in the future instead of just this one case. Before I just decided on a poll saying should I support the FBI or APPLE, I would want to know more about the future implications of supporting either. Its easy to support the FBI when its not your phone, but if they decided they wanted something off your phone and did the same thing, people might have a different opinion.

  • hub2

    Irrelevant. A single exception was all that was needed to disprove your sweeping, all-inclusive claim.

  • FragilityG4

    You believe that. You protect the “rights” of a terrorist. The FBI is not asking to look into your phone – just one phone. One phone of a guilty murderer and if you can’t understand that than I pity you. It’s people that share the same ideology as you, the ones on the left, who have made Trump as powerful as he is and with a very good chance at not only wining the Republican vote but the Presidential as well.

  • hub2

    I pity your lack of convictions, and for your support of this variation on Vic Toews’ infamous line in defence of the Conservatives’ failed internet spy bill, Bill C-26, which killed conservative grassroots support for it… “either stand with us or with the child pornographers”.

    It’s people like you who are so easily led by your emotions, who don’t understand the technical and legal issues involved, why it *won’t* be “just one phone” because of the legal precedent it creates, that make the world a less desirable place to live in.

  • hub2

    And oh yeah, congrats on moving the goalposts and going the ad hominem route, attacking my character and ethics because I poked two large holes in your argument.

  • FragilityG4

    What president does it send when you protect the rights of a terrorist? I guess it’s the Rosie O’Donnell approach “Don’t fear terrorist, they’re just moms and dads”

  • FragilityG4

    Please accept my apologies, it was not my intention to hurt you. I can ensure you it was written in a manner of generality.

  • xxxJDxxx

    That’s a childish over simplification of the issue. Not to mention straw man argument.

  • FragilityG4

    Believe that if you want. There were less people outraged when it was discovered that Xbox and Samsung Smart TV’s have the ability to look in at your home whenever they want. That affects more people than this one phone. They are looking for any information that can lead to stopping another attack and simply saying this sets a president and personal privacy will never be the same, well that’s the oversimplification. I love Apple and have for years but this stand off is nothing more than promoting its brand for security and customer protection. That is wrong. I hope they think of the long term ramifications if another attack happens, then the open the phone and find out there was intelligence that could have prevented it. What will they say then? What will you say then?

  • Kyle Mitton

    I don’t think it should be a backdoor but should be something used in these worst case scenarios. Who know’s what they’ll start unlocking and decrypting once the monkey is out of the bag.

    We need this to be controlled because once this is in the wrong hands, game over.

  • I think Apple’s FAQ on the matter makes it clear why a backdoor should never be created, even if it’s one time: http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/

  • FragilityG4

    Their selling their brand and if we find out one day that if they complied they could have prevented something, that FAQ will look very different. Protect the rights of the innocent, NOT a terrorist.