Anna Juan

In her New Yorker cover for September 12, 2011, Ana Juan persuades the viewers to mourn the loss of the victims of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. To persuade the minds of the viewer, Ana Juan creates a New York skyline, with the reflection of the Twin Towers in the water, rather than the buildings, in reference to the new memorial pools that were being built for the tenth anniversary of the attack, dark colors, and sharp lines. By creating this image of closure and reflection, Juan forces her readers to sense a loss in New York. She hopes that by connecting to those that view the cover in this way, they will commemorate the attack and the victims, on the tenth anniversary.

Write a Reflection about the way past and present are depicted in the drawing.

Juan perfectly brings together the past and the present in her drawing to create a better future. To represent the past, she shows the reflection of the Twin Towers that used to stand in the drawn out New York skyline. To represent the present, she creates a New York skyline where these two buildings are missing. To represent how these two components can look towards a brighter future, she places the buildings in the water to represent the memorial pool that was placed at Ground Zero a few months after this was published. Ana even said of her drawing “I have to brainstorm while grieving”. Even while she was reflecting on the past, as someone who witnessed the 9-11 attack first hand, she brainstorms how to commemorate the victims in the future.

Apple and Big Brother

Apple’s privacy dilemma, which is currently being argued in the court system, is one of many crucial components. While the government should not be lacking any information helpful to a criminal investigation, the government should also not infringe on the privacy of the citizens or the amount of loyal customers Apple receives. While Apple should give access to government officials with a search warrant, there should be a set bar the government cannot pass. The government should not reach the point where they take away from the relationship or the privacy between Apple and its customers, but they should not be withheld from gaining information about a criminal. The government should be given the right to view the information on the phone of a criminal suspect, but there should be some set of boundaries to maintain the first amendment rights.

In the specific cases of the December California shooting and the drug dealings the US government wishes to uncover, crucial information may be being withheld from government investigators. Requesting information from Apple is just a simple routine for investigation. If it is legal for government officials to ask a company to unlock a safe, a home, a car, or anything else that may block them from receiving the information they need, why should an iphone be different? Judge Orenstein stated that “Apple is not doing anything to keep law enforcement agents from conducting their investigation,” and while this may be true in this specific case, what if there is another case where critical information is left on an iphone? If this happens, will Apple still continue to refuse giving the government access?

Although I do believe in criminal cases Apple should grant the government needed information, I do see that a clear boundary needs to be set, in order not to infringe on the business Apple conducts. Since the 1983 commercial pitch where Steve Jobs asked the question, “Will Big Blue dominate the entire computer industry? The entire information age? Was George Orwell right about 1984?”, Apple has been known for their concerns of their privacy and freedom of their customers. This is one factor of Apple products that appeals consumers. Once the government takes away this appeal, Apple could lose business. Two boundaries that could be set to avoid this infringement are forcing all technology companies to unlock their products when needed and not forcing Apple to remove their ten tries policy, where an iphone owner can choose in the settings to delete all data after ten incorrect password attempts to unlock the iphone. Setting these boundaries would insure that the government does not effect the competition of technology and the company of Apple. This idea is supported by previous Supreme Court cases dealing with Roosevelt’s New Deal acts that were declared unconstitutional because they interfered with business competition, including the National Industrial Recovery Act.

The government should also set boundaries to insure they do not infringe on citizen’s first amendment rights. Apple responds to 1984 in their 1984 ad, by giving off the message that citizens should have freedom with their technology. After 9-11, the inspection of phone calls became a huge debate, but was constitutional because it was a time of emergency. If the safety of citizens depends on whether or not the government has access to locked information, the government should be granted this information. However, to insure that the government does not take advantage of this privilege, like in 1984, certain boundaries should be kept. The government should only be allowed access when really needed and the ten try policy should be kept. Citizens have a right to privacy on their phones, and the benefits of removing this setting will not outway the costs. People may feel that all their information is more accessible to the public and feel a loss of privacy the first amendment grants them. United States courts have even previously ruled that coding is a form of free speech, so the ten try policy may make citizens feel a lack of free speech.

While both Apple and the government have strong cases, the government is trying to do its job in protecting the safety of the citizens and enforcing the law. While I do agree that certain actions may take place that affect the business of Apple and the first amendment rights of customers, certain boundaries can be put in place to insure that this does not happen.