Reading 06 - Question 2
By: Keith MacDonell - kmacdone
I fully oppose the idea that technology companies should weaken the encryption of their devices or implement a "backdoor" that could be utilized for government surveillance purposes. I can understand the desire to have a way to get access to the information on the phone of the individual responsible for the San Bernardino terrorist attack. However, there are several issues I am concerned with in this situation.
My first concern is with the security issue of weakening encryption or implementing a backdoor. Despite best efforts to make such features available only in the case of a government investigation, this would also make the devices more susceptible to hackers with malicious intents. Because of this, it would negatively impact the privacy of every consumer/citizen using the device. On top of this, a cynical, but somewhat realistic view of government, brings up the question of abuse of power. Eventually, there could come about some instance where the government ability to access a "backdoor" would be abused and used for some purpose other than it was originally intended.
A second concern that I have with this is what would have happened had the FBI won the court case against Apple. In my opinion, this would have created a dangerous precedent that could be utilized in future court decisions. The article The Conscription of Apple's Software Engineers also raises this concern and included quotes from various figures who provided potentially catastrophic effects of this precedent being set. Thankfully, the court case was dropped when the FBI found a third party that could unlock the iPhone.
In my opinion, technology companies like Apple have a moral obligation to protect the privacy of their customers. By selling phones that are known to have security measures that ensure the privacy of the user, Apple has entered into a social contract with its consumers. It has a moral responsibility to is customers to protect their privacy, and creating a backdoor for government use would be a betrayal of this obligation.
The other side would argue that the companies have an obligation to make the backdoor that could potentially allow lives to be saved by thwarting planned terrorist attacks. However, to me, this seems like a trade off with an uncertain benefit. You are automatically trading away the privacy of individuals, but it is uncertain whether or not this will actually prevent a planned act of terrorism. I don't think that the argument "If you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to fear" is a good one. This assumes the goodwill and integrity of people in positions of power. Personally, the cynical part of me never thinks that this is a good idea, and because of this, I think that the protection of privacy is very important.
I fully oppose the idea that technology companies should weaken the encryption of their devices or implement a "backdoor" that could be utilized for government surveillance purposes. I can understand the desire to have a way to get access to the information on the phone of the individual responsible for the San Bernardino terrorist attack. However, there are several issues I am concerned with in this situation.
My first concern is with the security issue of weakening encryption or implementing a backdoor. Despite best efforts to make such features available only in the case of a government investigation, this would also make the devices more susceptible to hackers with malicious intents. Because of this, it would negatively impact the privacy of every consumer/citizen using the device. On top of this, a cynical, but somewhat realistic view of government, brings up the question of abuse of power. Eventually, there could come about some instance where the government ability to access a "backdoor" would be abused and used for some purpose other than it was originally intended.
A second concern that I have with this is what would have happened had the FBI won the court case against Apple. In my opinion, this would have created a dangerous precedent that could be utilized in future court decisions. The article The Conscription of Apple's Software Engineers also raises this concern and included quotes from various figures who provided potentially catastrophic effects of this precedent being set. Thankfully, the court case was dropped when the FBI found a third party that could unlock the iPhone.
In my opinion, technology companies like Apple have a moral obligation to protect the privacy of their customers. By selling phones that are known to have security measures that ensure the privacy of the user, Apple has entered into a social contract with its consumers. It has a moral responsibility to is customers to protect their privacy, and creating a backdoor for government use would be a betrayal of this obligation.
The other side would argue that the companies have an obligation to make the backdoor that could potentially allow lives to be saved by thwarting planned terrorist attacks. However, to me, this seems like a trade off with an uncertain benefit. You are automatically trading away the privacy of individuals, but it is uncertain whether or not this will actually prevent a planned act of terrorism. I don't think that the argument "If you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to fear" is a good one. This assumes the goodwill and integrity of people in positions of power. Personally, the cynical part of me never thinks that this is a good idea, and because of this, I think that the protection of privacy is very important.
Comments
Post a Comment