GIVE A SHORT REPLY TO THIS POST In this complex case, multiple stakeholders can be identified to be more than just the users and employees of Apple. The stakeholder view is one that coincides with strategic management and details that there are a multitude of groups that are affected by a company and its decisions $($Gilbert$,2016,$ pg$.59).$ Beyond the surface of the basic users and employees of Apple are people that could be potential victims of terrorism in the future. Apple has a crucial decision to make and can be perceived as a very slippery slope if the wrong decision is made. After the ISIS inspired incident of San Benardino it became clear that the possibility of preventing another mass attack was in the realm of possibility if Apple was willing to circumvent security measures to assist authorities $($Mosher & McDonald, n$.$d$.,$ para$\mathrm{.}2).$ Another group of stakeholders would also be government authorities and legal entities. The FBI and other government organizations are mandated to protect citizens while upholding national security interests. Apple is also its own stakeholder as they are trying to make the case that it is working to ensure the privacy and data security of its customers while still upholding their own First Amendment right $($Mosher & McDonald, n$.$d$.,$ para$\mathrm{.}2).$

The decision that benefits the most amount of users in this case would be not allowing the government entities access to Apple devices or developing a backdoor for them to use. There are simply millions of Apple users across the globe and developing a capability like this would be used repeatedly and creates the risk that this functionality could fall into the hands of threat actors $($Nicas & Benner, $2020,$ para. $16).$ While the number of people this could benefit by allowing this government is large, it pales in comparison to the size of the Apple user base who have the potential and risk for this backdoor to be used. Additionally, the outcome of this case could also promote more discussion on privacy rights in addition to more transparency on data protection.

I agree with the decision that utilitarianism has led me to$.$ Utilitarianism is often defined as a philosophical approach that states that a moral act is one that will be the most good and create the largest number of happiness for the highest amount of people $($Gilbert$,2016,$ pg$\mathrm{.}48).$ This decision is not one that was made lightly. The justice department also has valid points when it comes to securing the safety and preventing potential mass casualty events.

Applying the principals of Rights and Duties as well as Fairness and Justice does not change my stance or lead me to another answer. The right to dignity proclaims that humans have a right to freedoms such as truth$-$telling and privacy $($Gilbert$,2016,$ pg$\mathrm{.}70).$ Apple in this instance is trying to protect that right from potential governmental overreach. This case often has references to the slippery slope fallacy and Apple made the case that they shouldn't allow a backdoor to be created so they and other tech companies stay independent entities from the government. Justice in this case refers to two different things. Justice for the users and justice in a legal standpoint. While this case was never settled in court since security was circumvented without Apple's assistance, I feel as if the legal proceedings that would take place would decidedly side with Apple.