Discussion article on the moral aspect of potential encryption bypass by intelligence agencies.
Most recently, the CEO Apple and the head of the FBI called on people to express their opinions on issues that arose during the debate between the mentioned organizations. Such a requirement means the need for a public assessment of the problems on the map. Their inconsistency lies not in whether the government should be able to track the criminal. The controversy is not about something more modern than ordinary writing. The main contradiction lies in the right of law-abiding citizens to be confident in the safety of their private thoughts.
Imagine a powerful ruler who requires the priest to open to the public the content of the confessions of the parishioners. Our society adheres to a certain position: a priest should not betray people's trust. But what if the ruler demands information only about the person who has confessed to committing a terrible crime and proceeds from an interest in potentially preventing other such crimes, while ensuring the safety of other citizens? Will we get the priest to tell you everything? And what if the ruler has already been caught installing microphones in confessionals and lying about it, and now promises that he will not turn this precedent into an instrument for solving legal or political problems in the future?
One could argue that our phones – or, more broadly, all the technology we encrypt – is not a place for confession. And what are they then? Ask yourself if you know anyone who is stressed and tries to cope with it by pouring heavy thoughts into the pages of a personal journal? Think if you or someone you know finds order in the chaos of the world around you through written meditation, reflection, or any other form of writing? Now ask yourself if you can safely continue to do this in the digital world, where there is no certainty about the private nature of such recordings?
Denying ubiquitous access to strong encryption can be likened to prohibiting the peace of mind that completely innocent people might look for online, and to declaring that people are not allowed to keep written secrets. And it is this basic right that is under threat in this case. Despite the misguided public opinion, there is simply no way to circumvent security that applies only to the individual user. We are used to thinking that law enforcement agencies are capable of monitoring correspondence when necessary. But when it comes to the repositories of personal information (phones), we cross the line between spying on communication with other users and requiring access to information that no one can exchange. Such a requirement quite obviously endangers many decent users, while for criminals using encryption it will only be a minor inconvenience. In theory, any user with the proper level of knowledge and training can secure their information even before his / her fingers touch the keyboard. For example, a code language existed long before modern encryption. And what will happen if the words are written in a language that only the author can understand? Would it be right to force the author to decipher the meaning of such private records just because they were written?
At the heart of the question is an ignored distinction. The telephone is not only a means of communication, but also a storehouse of information. In this role, it increasingly turns into an expansion of our consciousness and memory and becomes more like a personal diary, more closely connected with our brain and body. In the modern world, more and more such storage facilities accompany more and more people in their daily work. In fact, whether they are carried around, on clothes, or in some other way integrated with the body or mind, the security of such personal information storage is much more important. than the security of a handwritten diary. The new 'diaries' are full of even more intimate details, but are no longer handwritten. They become closer companions and more and more people unknowingly trust them. Whether they realize it or not, a smartphone can easily be compared to a portable confessional. This, in turn, means that legal tricks to gain access 'just once' or pseudo-technical arguments about the need to legally bypass reliable encryption are crossing the border and we are talking about the security of personal communication and intrusion into personal thoughts and information.
The efforts of the FBI and encryption politicians may be well-intentioned, but based on completely flawed technological assumptions and trying to force us to take a path that is contrary to morality. It is important that more people become aware of what is at stake. We are not talking about a specific horrible crime and fair punishment for criminals, but that such justice is carried out by hacking into consumer devices with encryption. It's about the right of an individual to use strong encryption in a personal data warehouse.
Original material by Ahmed Amer, Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, Santa Clara University.
Elir: the flow of opinions on the burning problem of the modern information space does not stop. Despite the rather complicated way of presentation and the need to search for output between the lines, many of the author's thoughts sound pretty sane. It would seem that in this dispute, users in any case insist on protecting their personal interests. But do not forget about the attitude of the Western public to terrorism as a phenomenon, I will not be surprised that there will be those who will be willing to sacrifice the safety of law-abiding residents in order to expose criminal elements and the fight against terrorism. An interesting, in my opinion, parallel with religious concepts is drawn, for many users their web personality is inextricably linked with the real person, its safety is not in the last place and is perceived as a sacred duty of technology manufacturers.
In the past column, many commentators have suggested that the debate is just a ploy to attract attention from both sides. In some ways, this is so, manufacturers will not be able to overnight lose the lion's share of their carefully mined image, and the special services are likely to have other ways to obtain information about contacts and the content of correspondence of a particular subject. In such a situation, it is necessary to understand the fine line on which the situation and the possible consequences of breaking encryption were balanced. Perhaps this is one of those situations in which you need to leave everything as it is.