Poll Results

 Feb 23, 2016
 Private

Should Apple comply with the FBI request to unlock the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone? Why or why not?

200 RespondentsGeneral Population

Option A

Yes, Apple should unlock the iPhone


Score: 40
80 votes
Option B

No, Apple should not unlock the iPhone


Score: 60
120 votes

Responses 
Showing 200/200 responses

80 Responses to Option A
1
he is a terrorist
2
they should to give more insight on the matter, but at the same time it is a very slippery slope to open it up for other uses like this
3
if for security absolutely
4
Apple should unlock the phone because it's a security concern for it not to be. They can update the system for just that phone or program it just for that phone somehow.
5
Any criminal activity should throw any rights people have out the window.
6
Corporations are not citizens.
7
I think they should let apple do it in their offices and then give them the information, I don't think the government should have the "key" it self.
8
I think it is fine as long as it doesn't start a precedent
9
Criminals do not have a right to privacy.
10
It is a matter of national security. Unlock the damn phone.
11
We need to see whats on the phone
12
I wouldn't want to piss the FBI off at myself or my family.... so perhaps Apple might reconsider.. LOL. Seriously, I thought one/police/FBI or whatever could get a court order for such things.
13
They should comply. It is an important national security issue.
14
He is a killer and lost his rights when he decided to murder people
15
I think there is always an exception to a rule, especially if peoples lives are at stake. If they don't want to compromise others securities, then have a back up or something.
16
I agree with answer A. It's just a one time request for one particular phone, and the information may help the FBI prevent further terrorist attacks.
17
While I agree with Apple securing users privacy, the terrorists are dead now and it could help prevent future attacks
18
I think Apple should unlock iphones.
19
Because it is a matter that is requiring of it.
20
It is the American thing to do.
21
Apple should only unlock this specific iPhone but should not give any backdoor coding information to the government. This one phone was tied specifically to a crime so it should be the only one that the government should have access to, all other phones should be closed to backdoor access.
22
I think they should unlock this ONE iPhone.
23
Provided a court ordered warrant is in place, yes, an american company should comply with american laws or be held accountable and siezed of all assests.
24
Although privacy is an important issue. Public safety overrides that when it comes to a criminal's action.
25
Apple should unlock the iphone so that people can further customize the phone to their personal liking.
26
Yes, Apple is bound by the laws of the United States, just like every other company. The idea that the information sought might provide insight and help into the investigation is a bigger concern than Apple's privacy policies. If they wish to continue a solid reputation for being a good company with morals fitting their reputation, then they should provide this information without issue.
27
I think Apple is being unreasonable in this situation. Hack the phone with trusted people and the hack need not become public. When public safety is at stake, Apple should do all they can to help. I would boycott them if I used their products. I'm very disappointed in their irresponsible response.
28
I want to help prevent further attacks.
29
Compliance with government orders does keep us all safe, that's what the law is for
30
They seems to be capable of keeping other proprietary information secret, so unlock the phone and turn it over. No need to turn over the code... They are terrorists! Apple has created a safe haven for future terrorist communication.
31
It is a unique situation and they should unlock it. Otherwise I would have said NO.
32
It is a lot more complicated than this but a process needs to be developed along with a strict set of guidelines under which this can be accomplished without opening the phones up to hacking.
33
If they can unlock only the shooter's phone, and not build a "back door" making everyone's security would be compromised!
34
The FBI is requesting a specific thing for a specific case. I think Apple should comply. It would be different if they were not sure exactly who the shooter is, but they do. Fourteen people died, and the FBI wants to make sure their case against the shooter is as tight as possible. The phone could help with that.
35
Yes, if you are involved in a felony criminal prosecution, then all bets are off for privacy. Sorry. IF, and I stress if, they refuse to unlock the phone and the shooter's guilt is proven I say it should constitute accessory after the fact. That will change Apple's view of the situation. Those are the consequences.
36
He broke the law
37
I believe Apple should unlock the iphone becuase it provides the government with much needed data to solve one of the most violent massacres in us history.
38
If he was a suspect I'd say no, but since he definitely killed multiple people I'm fine with it.
39
They're not asking for a "back door" and they have probably cause to want to get into it.
40
Apple should cooperate to the best of their abilities with law enforcement, as we all must do.
41
I think that since he's admitted to the crime that they should have access to it. I feel like he's lost his right to privacy once he committed such a terrible crime.
42
we need to do everything we can to fight terrorism
43
Because this guy is a criminal, his personal privacy should not be allowed. The phone may contain pertinent information that could be used in the future.
44
When you are a suspect then your rights are no longer valid.
45
I think when you commit certain crimes you are also waiving certain rights. Maybe Apple, and other tech companies, should put something in those licence agreements that we all check off on when we install or buy software that say that if you are convicted of a mass shooting or some other horrible crime that you no longer have a right to privacy, like how when you open up your video game console you void the warranty. With changing technology we need to update and change our laws and technology seems to be something that is vastly misunderstood by the justice system in this country. Just look at how many women are cyber stalked or threatened online and when they complain to the police, the police don't understand what they're talking about.
46
Of course they should. The FBI needs access to the phone so see who the terrorists were talking too. Also if terrorists find out that they can use apple products without being caught that is not good
47
The information obtained from the phone could be valuable in determining if the shooters acted alone. As for the slippery slope of providing the FBI an unencryption tool that could be abused, this is true. But we are a nation of laws and must rely on procedure preventing abuse, even though situations like the recent NSA spying proves that laws are indeed abused.
48
Court order only
49
Yes they should, because I have a feeling that they are exaggerating the fact that this can compromise EVERYONE'S privacy--I would think that they surely can take that ONE phone PRIVATELY and retrieve the information on it WITHOUT any risk to anyone else!!
50
It will helps us learn about him
51
Companies usually have policies regarding criminal prosecution where they can reveal your private information. Even doctors do. It would make sense to unlock the phone of a murderer.
52
I think shooting people and possibly being a terrorist with ties to other terrorists voids your expectation of privacy. It's a matter of national security and could help us find terrorists planning attacks and could potentially stop terrorists that could kill hundreds or thousands of people. In general no, they shouldn't unlock phones, but for specific cases, yes, sometimes it should be done.
53
I think if someone commits a crime, they should have their privacy rights relinquished.
54
I think that they should for only the shooter. Basically jailbreak the phone and let them get the information off of it and require that it needs to be returned to Apple.
55
If it is possible to do this without putting the security of others information at risk then I am for it. We know a very horrible was committed, however from what I understand there is risk to peoples privacy from the government if they have a key or precedent to access the phones of citizens.
56
make an exception.
57
National security is in everyone's best interest. It has to be the most important thing: keeping people safe.
58
There's a court order. Apple has to obey the law. There's information there that can prevent further murders. Why are we even talking about this? Unlock the damn phone already.
59
It could provide the person who planned the attack on San Bernadino and there is no right to privacy in the US Constitution.
60
It's a major crime....UNLOCK THE PHONE!!!!
61
I think once the FBI is involved that person has lost their rights to privacy.
62
I know Apple shouldn't do it, but this is a special request that can save lives and understand how shooters think
63
Could see one side r the other--neither are ideal
64
Fighting terrorism is more important
65
These are guilty terrorists so they should comply
66
Unlocking the phone does not invade privacy. It allows the invasion of privacy, which the FBI has gotten around with a subpoena.
67
when it comes to terrorism i think they should help. it involves the safety of our country.
68
This is a single, specific request. If it were a general request for them to unlock any phone, any time, I would be against.
69
I think they should in these type of criminal cases. I mean he is a criminal, so he kind of gave up his privacy by breaking the law.
70
Open source is the best!
71
It would provide them with alot of useful information. If you have a smartphone, a large portion of your life is on it.
72
If it involves the safety of people I think so.
73
he is a murderer, they need the information on there to further their case and profiles.
74
It is a high profile case plus everyone knows Apple can unlock phones
75
Safety comes first for citizens
76
Too many lives are at stake
77
because its how I feel
78
It's morally the right thing to do and could help solve a case. Apple should have corporate responsibility to do so for society.
79
Why should Apple be able to refuse search and seizures when the avg American cannot? If they have a court order then they should do what the FBI wants them to do.
80
Yes, because the shooter is a criminal and a terrorist. They forfeit their privacy right as soon as they committed such a horrible crime.
120 Responses to Option B
1
It sets a precedent for the future if they do.
2
It's a complicated situation, but agreeing would set a dangerous precedent.
3
Would be a huge invasion of privacy and grant too much power to the government.
4
Apple made a promise to its customers. Keep the promise
5
No, the FBI messed up the unlock code, not Apple. Apple should not be required to create a backdoor that can jeopardize everyone's privacy.
6
It threatens privacy around the world.
7
I think it would set a potentially dangerous precedent in which the government could unlock the phones of any citizen at any time for suspicion of illicit activities.
8
No, they should protect consumer rights and privacy. If they comply this would set a bad precedent.
9
Whatever happened to privacy?
10
If Apple unlocks the phone, what they do will potentially give our government a tool to breach any Apple device.
11
bc the gov will go after anyone's phone.
12
It's not any corporation's job to do whatever the government tells them to do if it invade the privacy of anyone...
13
They are a private company who should respect their users privacy no matter the situations the users get themselves in to.
14
You know it'll get leaked somehow and fall into the wrong hands. Or maybe the FBI is already the wrong hands.
15
Once there is a back door built for phone access it makes phones vulnerable to unscrupulous people all over the world endangering people all over the world.
16
They don't have any obligation to
17
I believe they should not because as they have announced they would need to develop software to do this and the reason they haven't developed that software to date is because they do not feel that it is something that should be available. These are the principles and values of the company and they should not be compromised because the government says they should. Overall it is a slippery slope that Apple is rightfully trying to avoid.
18
I'm not really certain on my opinion of this, but in my opinion there are legal precendents that either need to be followed or are in the process of being established. In my opinion Apple should eventually unlock the iPhone, but only after a certain procedure of checks and balances have been followed.
19
That's a door that once open, cannot be closed. I don't think the FBI realizes what they're asking apple to create. We're not talking about making one key to open one door, we're talking about making a magic key that will open all doors. I don't trust that this one phone will be the only one that is unlocked. I'd gladly write you an entire essay on the subject, but unfortunately I'm only allotted 5 minutes.
20
I don't think they should comply because it will be a huge risk to everyone's security.
21
If apple unlocks the phone then they will be able to do that to any phone at any time. This opens the door to privacy breaches for innocent people in the future. It is not just about these specific murderers.
22
No, because it would cause security problems for everyone.
23
No because they will want to do it with every phone after that.
24
I don't know, but I'm leaning toward no. It would set a bad precedent as far as consumer privacy goes. I'm sure the FBI could gather plenty of information they would need without Apple's help. I can't believe they could not unlock the phone themselves.
25
From a practical standpoint, does Apple want to be the first company willingly to openly compromise the privacy of their devices?
26
privacy and security should not be fully compromised on the user end. something should be done though for situations like this
27
Apple should not unlock the iPhone because it will open a Pandora's box of security issues.
28
Even though other companies like Mcafee and Microsoft have supported it, I feel they should not be strong armed in to something they don't feel they should do. They designed their phones to not be accessed by 3rd parties on purpose. I feel if the phone was unlocked, then it would set a precedent for other phones to be accessed by the FBI, along with a potential "backdoor" as most other electronics do have. (i.e - routers, modems, etc)
29
It will compromise everyone's privacy if they do so, and set a bad precedent.
30
Although useful in just a handful of situations, creating such a backdoor is potentially dangerous for national security. Just about any backdoor intrusion can get into the wrong hands. This is a safe move for consumers by not having this way to unlock data for our privacy. And I don't even own any Apple products myself.
31
Privacy is at the heart of everyone's rights
32
It would set a precedent. Then various law enforcement officers will be asking for other people's phones to be unlocked. Where will it end?
33
It would make the phone less secure.
34
Apple should fight this. Creating a backdoor to all Iphones is a major privacy violation and a very scary precedent to set.
35
Opening the iPhone could lead to court rulings that allow police to unlock iPhones without consent.
36
Privacy is important
37
Other countries would demand Apple unlock phones.
38
Unlocking the phone sets a precedent for the continued erosion of our privacy.
39
If Apple does it now, the government will expect them to do it whenever they want.
40
Privacy man!
41
no because even criminals have their rights and privacy is not one to be compromised. We let them take a slice of cake they will want the whole cake and were back to the NSA
42
I think it would set a dangerous precedent and make it easier for hackers in the future.
43
Once that Pandora's box is opened, we'll never close it. It's tragic in this case, but we must respect the law. It starts a slippery slope - who's next? Eventually it'll be me and you and I sure don't want the gov't snooping around in my stuff.
44
The FBI is using this as a ploy to gain access to everyone's phone. Our privacy is important. I side with apple and google and everyone else who is fighting against giving the FBI access.
45
No. It's like opening Pandora's box, all of the bad will come out of it. Or, for another example, how the South Park creators describe their comedy: Once you draw a line, it's going to keep getting pushed. If you say it's not okay to make fun of one thing, suddenly people are going to be that much more upset that you made fun of another thing. The FBI says it's only this one time, but once they have access they'll demand to use it all of the time. It will get abused.
46
I feel like it's a slippery slope for what the FBI will have access to. There's supposed to be a guarantee of privacy with your phone and this will completely disregard that.
47
It is a slippery slope and sets a precedent for the government to be able to unlock anyones phone, violating our rights to privacy.
48
It would set an awful precedent. Since the shooter is only alleged at this point, theoretically could be unlocking an innocent individuals phone for information. This would be bad in situations where the alleged is actually innocent (not this one, just saying...)
49
If they do that they will give the fbi an iphone with unemcripted an the key to bypass privacy
50
Apple has a right to say no to a request. I think they should only be compelled to do so if the FBI has a warrant.
51
No because if its legal to unlock his then they can unlock all of ours. I understand the reasoning of wanting to, but it has to apply to all of us.
52
Apple should protect our rights to privacy.
53
It will cause problems for everyone. That is our privacy. Although I want to know I will not feel safe knowing my phone can be unlocked that simple.
54
It would set a very bad precedent.
55
The right to privacy is hotly contested nowadays, especially with regards to rapidly advancing technology. Unlocking the iphone would set a dangerous precedent that would compromise our right to privacy.
56
Overall I think it will open pandoras box. Either the government will take the program and reverse engineer the program to work on all iphones or they will ask apple to open the 30 or so other phones they want opened. Plus if I was apple I would be worried about losing my whole fan base that buy the phones because they are secure. So idk they have enough money maybe time to close down shop instead of complying.
57
It sets a precedent that I don't want them to have that authority.
58
Because FBI is not simply asking to unlock shooter's iphone. They are asking to create backdoor which can cause invading other's privacy later on.
59
I feel mixed on this decision. They should protect other users but I can understand the FBI WANTING THE SHOOTERS INFO
60
Apple shouldn't have to expose its security to unlock a single iPhone. The risk to the public far outweighs the benefit to unlocking the phone via this method, and the potential for this method to be used to access many other phones.
61
Serious invasion of privacy, especially for the rest of us.
62
It's like dominos. Once they comply all privacy will be lost.
63
It's a slippery slope towards abuse.
64
I don't like the precedent it sets. I don't believe in trading freedom and privacy for security.
65
The FBI should use third party unlocking software
66
It's the own governments fault it's locked and it's too burndensome to make apple create software to unlock it.
67
It is an invasion of privacy. They should only do it with a warrant.
68
They should continue to respect the privacy of all of their customers, no matter what they have done
69
In reading numerous articles about this topic, I think protecting consumers information is crucial in today's technologic society. Unlocking this phone will create a loop hole for hackers to obtain information from day-to-day Iphone users.
70
We have a right to privacy and if Apple complies it will cause our privacy to be ignored and anyone will be able to get our information from our personal and private devices.
71
Unlocking the phone would create an easy access for hackers to hack into any phone. If encryption is weakened anywhere, we might as well give away all our personal information.
72
Its just a ploy to get a back door to all iphones
73
Its just a ruse to get a back door to all iphones and they should be able to hack it on their own
74
Apple should not unlock the phone because it sets a dangerous legal precedent for law enforcement to be able to unlock phones (and personal property) at will. Additionally, it creates a dangerous tool that could fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists.
75
I don't want the government getting access to private citizens phones. If they get it this time they will get it in the future.
76
It is a privacy issue and sets a dangerous precedent in future cases.
77
I cannot be convinced that with all of the technology in the hands of the United States government, the FBI is not able to do their own dirty work and unlock this phone. It is my understanding that a member of the FBI already changed the passcode and locked themselves out. I do think the phone should be unlocked, but not by Apple.
78
Sets a bad precedent. Right to privacy is important.
79
The government is not asking them to comply with opening one phone, it is every phone. That is a violation of privacy and I am glad that Apple is taking a stand!
80
Doing so would give precedent to allow government backdoor access to encrypted data.
81
Although i wish the shooter to face painful justice, i do not want apple to set president by allowing open access backdoor to our mobiles. Once its been done, public and media will turn a blind eye when an agency would ask for access to anyone.
82
I think it could do more harm than good. That shooting was many months ago and I believe they can find the information needed in other ways
83
Apple should stick to their guns and not set a precedent.
84
Because everyone should be held to at least some degree of privacy.
85
It's setting a precedent. Apple should not comply. Customer privacy is too important.
86
It's an invasion of privacy.
87
The government is being too controlling.
88
Weak encryption is bad for society, even if terrorists occasionally use it. I won't trade one for the other.
89
It would chip away from people's already deteriorating rights to privacy.
90
Once that technology exists, it invariably will fall into the wrong hands.
91
Apple should not unlock the iPhone, because if they do, it will make everyone think its OK for the FBI to demand whatever they want. Specifically, it would make it OK for the FBI to infringe on whatever privacy rights we have left in the name of "fighting" terrorism.
92
It's a Pandora's box of problems. If they comply with this it's the first step down a rocky road.
93
once apple starts and comes up with a hack then that opens it up for invasion of privacy for everyone.
94
they should not comply. once they do then they will just keep asking for more and will have too much access to peoples private data.
95
Because that would give the government too much power to make people break the law. we live in a society of laws not just do whatever the government says because they say it type of country.
96
encryption is basic privacy protection that should be required on modern day electronics just like your allow to put locks on your doors.
97
Because unlocking the phone is way more than just revealing held information (which could be obtained by a subpoena). Instead, it involves Apple having to create a program that enables it to hack - the government compelling a private party to develop ways to spy on a third party. The larger precedent for this is huge, and so Apple should not unlock the iPhone; even if it would be good in the San Bernadino case specifically, the wider precedent it sets would be incredibly damaging.
98
As someone with a BS in a security related field it seems like a powergrab by the FBI to get more reach into Apple related products. I mean they obviously aren't interested in just the phone because a lot of Security experts have offered to unlock the phone. They want a backdoor into everyones apple products mainly. The problem is that witnesses claim that the attack was not by muslims but by covert US black ops. It seems the FBI and government just wants more power. They believe the average american will give up freedom for more security. But everyone knows Benjamin Franklins quote about giving up freedom for security.
99
If Apple complies, it sets a precedent for other companies to abide by law enforcement requests. If Apple can't beat the FBI, no other technological giant can either. The FBI likely already has the data it needs, it's merely pushing this to happen in order to set the legal grounds for future decisions.
100
Unlocking the phone would set a horrible precedent for invasion of privacy. The government should not be allowed access when it endangers the freedoms of the entire society. They need to find other means to deal with shooting.
101
it sets a dangerous precedent
102
It would set a dangerous precedent for accessing information. Also, creating the software essentially opens access to ALL iPhones, regardless of whether or not this is a "one time use". Once the possibility is out there, someone else will find a way to use it, or the FBI will take advantage of it without our knowledge.
103
sets a dangerous precedent
104
Information companies should never comply with Estate powers requests. This is how we start with the Big Brother...
105
I have deep reservations about corporations working closely with the government. If Apple unlocks the iPhone in this case, how many other times will they cooperate with the government in accessing our information?
106
Nope because it compromises the security of other users. Once they do it once, the government wont hesitate to ask for it to be done again.
107
The long term ramifications aren't worth it. The government shouldn't be allowed to view our private communication.
108
Regardless of how useful it is for the FBI to be able to do this, it sets a unsettling precedent to all citizen's privacy.
109
Due to privacy rights. This sets a very dangerous precedent. Law enforcement has shown that they cannot be trusted with absolute power.
110
They should in individual cases where they are ordered by a court.
111
This is definitely a grey area topic. Usually the fallacy of slippery slope might apply but I disagree. This could open up a whole bunch of security back end holes in the future with other devices. This could put the privacy for all people in jeopardy. This is not a good answer. Like with the Patriot Act, this will go badly too. Other companies will follow suit if Apple agrees. USA government will think they can push them to comply. The only people that will lose are the people who own phones. This will start a very bad precedent. I can fully understand why they want to and why the FBI is asking, but ... I just don't agree.
112
everyone deserves privacy
113
Because the bill of rights.
114
I don't think companies should give up any users privacy. It's sets a dangerous precedent and what could we really learn from that phone?
115
Can't trust them to not use it for other phones later.
116
I believe in choice and freedom when it comes to products you own.
117
It is a slippery slope, giving access and allowing the FBI access is going to take away any of the little privacy we have left.
118
It is important for the privacy of US citizens that Apple should refuse to unlock the iphone.
119
This will set a precedent and then they will be able to access any phone for any reason.
120
The government wants Apple to create a method to unlock the Iphone that does not currently exist. Two seconds after they do that, the Chinese and other governments will have that knowledge and there will be no privacy with respect to your data on any Iphone, anywere. The government should not be looking to do this in the first place.

Demographics

Age
18-34 (58%)
TraitPercentage
3-17 (0%)0
18-34 (58%)58
35-49 (34%)34
50-64 (8%)8
65+ (1%)1
Education
College (71%)
TraitPercentage
High School (17%)17
College (71%)71
Grad School (13%)13
Ethnicity
White (83%)
TraitPercentage
White (83%)83
Black (4%)4
Hispanic (6%)6
Asian (7%)7
Other (1%)1
Gender
Male (56%)
TraitPercentage
Male (56%)56
Female (45%)45
Income
$30-60k (39%)
TraitPercentage
$0-30k (30%)30
$30-60k (39%)39
$60-100k (26%)26
$100k+ (6%)6
Age for Option A
18-34 (44%)
TraitPercentage
3-17 (0%)0
18-34 (44%)44
35-49 (44%)44
50-64 (11%)11
65+ (1%)1
Education for Option A
College (68%)
TraitPercentage
High School (18%)18
College (68%)68
Grad School (15%)15
Ethnicity for Option A
White (81%)
TraitPercentage
White (81%)81
Black (6%)6
Hispanic (6%)6
Asian (5%)5
Other (1%)1
Gender for Option A
Female (56%)
TraitPercentage
Male (44%)44
Female (56%)56
Income for Option A
$30-60k (35%)
TraitPercentage
$0-30k (26%)26
$30-60k (35%)35
$60-100k (31%)31
$100k+ (8%)8
Age for Option B
18-34 (68%)
TraitPercentage
3-17 (0%)0
18-34 (68%)68
35-49 (27%)27
50-64 (6%)6
65+ (0%)0
Education for Option B
College (73%)
TraitPercentage
High School (16%)16
College (73%)73
Grad School (11%)11
Ethnicity for Option B
White (84%)
TraitPercentage
White (84%)84
Black (3%)3
Hispanic (5%)5
Asian (8%)8
Other (1%)1
Gender for Option B
Male (63%)
TraitPercentage
Male (63%)63
Female (37%)37
Income for Option B
$30-60k (42%)
TraitPercentage
$0-30k (33%)33
$30-60k (42%)42
$60-100k (22%)22
$100k+ (4%)4

A

Votes by demographic segment

B


Age
-
3-17 (None)
-
30%
18-34 (116)
69%
52%
35-49 (67)
47%
56%
50-64 (16)
43%
100%
65+ (1)
0%

Education
42%
High School (33)
57%
38%
College (142)
61%
48%
Grad School (25)
52%

Ethnicity
39%
White (166)
60%
62%
Black (8)
37%
45%
Hispanic (11)
54%
30%
Asian (13)
69%
50%
Other (2)
50%

Gender
31%
Male (111)
68%
50%
Female (89)
49%

Income
35%
$0-30k (60)
65%
35%
$30-60k (78)
64%
49%
$60-100k (51)
50%
54%
$100k+ (11)
45%
Loading