Having a framework to protect the victim is critical for their well-being. Giving into the claim that setting foot in sensible information will provide a necessary knowledge of terrorism isn’t what most people will recognize as wise. For the F.B.I. this means gaining an entrance to Apple’s strict software. Unable to achieve such stiff entrance the F.B.I. asked for Apple to bring in their involvement in this situation by demanding to let them have permission inside the iPhone. The F.B.I. is very single-minded in the idea of just unlocking that one iPhone but not thinking that they would do the same procedure to any of Apple’s products. In this day and age, privacy becomes less of a considerable necessity rather than enforcing firm ideas whether it can be maintained or refined. Privacy must be kept in one’s right mind and if let in the hands of any foolish demand it will no longer have its value nor purpose. Eventually, it will not have enough to maintain what it had and it will be put to greater use. Privacy relies on it becoming sustainable at a point by keeping borderlines, and setting a position to overwrite what isn’t deemed as private or secure.

Many changes go into making privacy less of a bothersome to those who may struggle. Barriers must be put between what the government wants and cannot have. Cook stated that making an entrance into their operating system without guided attention will bring havoc on whoever is innocent to their attack and placed. If determining any parts where this privacy will alter a person’s perspective wouldn’t be an ideal choice. This grants a person control of anyone’s private information. The intrusion on someone’s own privacy will create a more convoluted scenario in which a rational person cannot take part in. According to Cook, what they don’t technically have with them can’t be given. The government makes a signal that would confuse those with a lack of individuality but those who gather beyond what the government is trying to convey can clearly see that bonds will remain intact if not going forward with this demand. The refusal to comply brings what is desired most. As dangerous as it may become it will undoubtedly bring a tragic truth of sacrificing what is admired most or giving up what has been established as everything will be noticed which wouldn’t happen if Cook keeps his aim for the future of borderline protection.

Perhaps as thorough as it may seem it is a circumstance willing to be maintained. It's a reputation from the result of being able to protect a certain individual’s overall identity. Obtaining most of the roles people attend to in a daily schedule and will be accessed in multiple occurrence and undeniably have many situations that take part in that person’s life. The F.B.I. wants to overwrite this “surrogate” as Leetaru mentioned as a foreign offence but this doesn’t need to take place due to the privacy and security it integrated in its software. Leetaru explains that phones are becoming ever more difficult for them to easily unlock it. All phones including the iPhone have some degree of security that cannot be overwritten and it brings privacy too. Data that cannot be handled by law enforcements and information only Apple can view and protect. Promising that their users privacy will be secured.   

Some may refuse to accept or acknowledge the few options available to contrast this position. Clearly, a reduced number of preventable terrorist attacks comes with full emphasis in the idea that it can be stopped if privacy was minimized. Having the opportunity to gain access to the San Bernandino shooter will give the F.B.I. the reasoning for their decision. It will provide the F.B.I. with a plan to counteract their attempts before the terrorists doing so. Crucial evidence will be gathered if given the access and will make a reverse impact to the attackers’ assembly. But, having privacy doesn’t undermine the concept that with it comes the involvement of the people. Having privacy sets future projects to revolve around the idea of comfort and a noninvasive community. People don’t want the F.B.I. spying on them for a situation that will be handled in a less invasive way. An overwhelming atmosphere develops when this monstrosity comes into their individual life and their families. The F.B.I. will constantly be reminding of why it’s better to not go through the route of invading someone’s personal life for the safety they think would come out of this. It takes the safety of someone’s own home rather than the observing nature the F.B.I. wants to put on its citizens. Nonetheless, others may argue with what was being presented but there’s no mistake that privacy if not tampered with will ease the people.

Privacy creates a barrier everyone would desire to accept with the contribution of its private and secure descriptions. The progress of privacy is almost becoming another language as it must be learned and not used for a single purpose but to introduce other specific ways it will benefit the average consumer. The F.B.I. uses major reasoning to support their claim but cannot change the fact that privacy is personal at any level and must be respected by everyone. The government will not have access to the Apple’s customers just to reduce the amounts of terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks will never end even if allowed to invade a person’s privacy. An unwanted attention from many other government organizations will grow into an attack to every single person with an iPhone.