On Tuesday, February 16th, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym of the Federal District Court for the District of Central California ordered Apple Inc. to create a “backdoor” for their iPhone security software.

The FBI wants to use this backdoor to unlock the iPhone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, the terrorist responsible for the San Bernardino mass shooting and attempted bombing. The phone currently is set to erase all data after 10 incorrect password inputs. With the demanded software, the government would be able to access crucial information about the motives behind the terrorist attack.

However, Apple CEO Tim Cook has opposed the government’s request and, in a letter to customers, stated, “In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession. The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor.”

This conflict raises an important question in today’s society: How far should the government be able to investigate an individual’s private life? With more and more personal information being stored on smartphones every day, data encryption has become stronger than ever, to the point where even Apple and Google have encryptions that they themselves cannot crack.

To make software that can open a single iPhone sets a precedent for all future conflicts. If the U.S. Government can demand access to private information, what/who else can obtain that information? The government says that the backdoor would only be used for this iPhone, but once they have a backdoor for one, they have access to all iPhones.

Daniel Darnell, a senior at Bob Jones, believes, “the FBI is intentionally overstepping it’s authority to legally increase the scope of its surveillance abilities. I believe the U.S. government has already greatly overstepped its authority in the name of security and to further this would upset the balance between the security of our nation and the privacy of its citizens.”

However, Senator Tom Cotton claims that if Apple is allowed to refuse the court order, they are getting a special treatment. He says, “If we apply a different legal standard to companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook, we can expect them to become the preferred messaging services of child pornographers, drug traffickers, and terrorists alike — which neither these companies nor law enforcement want.”

Both sides bring strong arguments to the table, but the issue still stands: Should Apple refuse to grant the U.S. government access to an individual’s phone, even if the individual is a terrorist?