About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


66 Am. U. L. Rev. 1293 (2016-2017)
Holding the FBI Accountable for Hacking the Apple's Software under the Takings Clause

handle is hein.journals/aulr66 and id is 1337 raw text is: NOTE HOLDING THE FBI ACCOUNTABLE FOR HACKING APPLE'S SOFTWARE UNDER THE TAKINGS CLAUSE MARK S. LEVY* Smartphones have swiftly replaced most-if not all-conventional methods of sending, receiving, and storing personal information. Letters, address books, calendars, and trips to the bank have been rendered obsolete by tools such as text messaging, digital contacts, iCal, and mobile banking apps. Although these digital alternatives are convenient, they are not immune from attack. Therefore, to remain competitive, technology companies must maintain safe and secure platforms on which users may freely store and share their personal information. Apple Inc., for example, strives to protect its users' intimate information, consequently earning a reputation for prioritizing security. Like a king protecting his castle, Apple has erected a variety of technological and legal barriers to guard its users' data and ward off unwanted intruders from vulnerabilities at a variety of stages. First, to protect user data from unauthorized access, Apple's software authorizes iPhone users to set their own passcode. Next, Apple encrypts its iPhone software, essentially placing a- digital padlock on its software to preclude any software alterations, including the user-determined passcode functionality. Lastly, Apple copyrights its * Note & Comment Editor, American University Law Review, Volume 66; J.D. Candidate, May 2017, American University Washington College of Law, BA. Psychology, James Madison University. I am inordinately grateful to Nancy Turner, for her thoughtful counsel throughout the development of this Note, and to Lisa Southerland, for her valuable contributions during the publication process. I also would like to thank the talented American University Law Review staff for its hard work and meticulous focus. 1293