Ethic assignment 3

For this week’s assignment, the applicable law from last week’s Law and Compliance assignment that comes to mind is the  Computer Security Law of 1987. It was passed to improve the security and privacy of sensitive information in federal computer systems and to establish a minimum acceptable security practices for such systems. It requires the creation of computer security plans, and the appropriate training of system users or owners where the systems house sensitive information. FISMA assigns specific responsibilities to federal agencies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Office of Management and Budget  in order to strengthen information security systems. In particular, FISMA requires the head of each agency to implement policies and procedures to cost-effectively reduce information technology security risks to an acceptable levels. There are some situation where it would be morally acceptable to break the law for some instance say you discovered that the government was spying on everything that the population is doing and that they allow it in some court cases. Such act is a violation of our fourth amendment right "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things". We all have seen TV shows and movies that suggest that government is violating our right to privacy. In the news we have a new development where the FBI want to create a new version of a Iphone where they would be able to access it without your permission. The reason why the FBI wants this is because they want to access a shooters iphone and Apple is refusing it. I don't think it is acceptable to violate one's privacy regardless of what they might have done or what they are doing doing it's their right to keep it a secret. Socrates. In Plato's Crito he was wrongfully accused and put in prison because of laws that were unjust. Socrates introduces the voice of Laws of Athens, which speaks to him and explain why it would be unjust for him to leave his cell. Since the Laws exist as one entity, to break one would be to break all, and in doing so Socrates would cause them great harm. The citizen is bound to the Laws like a child is bound to parent, and so to go against the Laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the Laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the Laws to let him go. These Laws present the citizen's duty to them in a form of a social contract. By choosing to live there a citizen is implicitly endorsing the Laws and is willing to abide by them. The same applies for the government is there is a fourth amendment they should abide by it. Apple is making a good decision not letting them have this control