圣贝南多事件是全球安全形势严峻的一个例子。还有许多迫在眉睫的威胁，政府想要保护人民(林德和兰金39)。从伦理的角度来看，人的安全比个人隐私更重要似乎是合理的。政府一再声明这一原因，但这也妨碍了个人隐私和公民自由。有些人选择从事欺骗活动，其目的就是要造成伤害。因此，为了安全起见，在某些情况下隐私需要被妥协，这似乎是合理的(Pearson 7)。尽管与政府共享信息会产生一些风险和安全漏洞，但由于目前的情况，安全变得势在必行。根据1789年颁布的所有令状法，苹果公司在提供援助时应遵守政府的命令，这是一个判例。这个法令几乎和宪法一样古老，宪法赋予政府保护国家的广泛控制权。同样在1977年美国诉纽约电话案中，“所有令状法案”被用来做出裁决(Opderbeck和Hurwitz 8)。法官命令苹果公司向联邦政府提供援助。
本案开创的先例是立法更加重视人民的安全(Opderbeck, and Hurwitz 8)，这是政府在做决定时考虑的首要因素。这成为了安全和隐私的经典案例。政府表示，在圣贝纳迪诺事件中，年轻的已婚夫妇同情伊斯兰国武装分子。随后，14人在枪击事件中丧生，22人受伤。他们使用的是iPhone 5c (Opderbeck和Hurwitz 3)，而苹果拒绝帮助黑掉这款手机。法官命令他们在破案过程中给予政府合理的技术援助。政府声明苹果拒绝调查这款手机。然而，苹果首席执行官表示，事实并非如此。自1990年以来，政府一直试图在所有手机中安装一种用于监控的小芯片。一些分析人士警告说，这践踏了个人的基本自由权利。这也将开创政府可以控制个人自由和信息的先例。政府有可能过度控制。这将导致死锁情况。
San Bernando case is an example of how severe the situation regarding security is across the world. There are many more imminent threats the government wants to protect the people (Lind and Rankin 39). From an ethical standpoint, it does seem reasonable that the security of people is more important than privacy of individuals. Government has repeatedly stated this reason but this also impedes on individual privacy and civil liberties. Some people choose to act in deceitful activities with the very notion of causing harm. Hence, it does seem reasonable that for the sake of security, in some instances privacy needs to be compromise (Pearson 7). Even though there are a number of risks and security vulnerabilities that arise from sharing information with the government, owing to the current situation, security becomes imperative.The precedent used to make the legal determination that Apple should comply with the governmental mandates in providing assistance was set forth using 1789 All Writs law. This statute is almost as old as the constitution, which gives government broad controlling powers for the protection of the state. Similarly in 1977 US vs. New York Telephone, “All Writs Acts” was used to make the determination (Opderbeck, and Hurwitz 8). Apple even asked if this law extends to the third party vendors. The judge ordered Apple to provide assistance for the federal government.
The precedent that this case sets is that legislations give more importance to the security of the people (Opderbeck, and Hurwitz 8). This is the primary factor that the government considers while making a determination.This becomes a classic case of security versus privacy. Government states that in the case of San Bernardino, young married couple sympathized with the Islamic State militants. Subsequently, 14 people were killed and 22 were injured in a shooting rampage. They had used iPhone 5c (Opderbeck, and Hurwitz 3). Apple refused to help hack into the phone. The judge ordered that they give reasonable technical assistance to the government in solving of the crime. Government stated that Apple refused to look into this specific phone. Nevertheless, Apple CEO states that this is simply not the case. Government has been trying from 1990 onwards to introduce a small chip in all the phones for surveillance purpose. Some analysts warn that this tramples basic freedom rights of individuals. This would also set a precedent that governments can control individual freedom and information. There is a possibility of excessive governmental control. This leads to a deadlock situation.