Search form

Comments (3)

avatar

Foncham Denis Doh (not verified) March 25, 2016

What ever direction the argument goes, I strongly believe that the security of users especially at this moment when cyber crime and terrorism is on the rise is by far more important than their privacy. So for the sake of criminal investigations the state can use it's intelligence service to probe into the privacy of an individual who is a suspected criminal.
avatar

Ginger Paque March 25, 2016

I don't think it's necessary to prioritise. Security, both State and personal is very important, as is privacy. If a State uses due process to collect evidence, as you say 'to probe into the privacy of an individual who is a suspected criminal' there is no violation of privacy. That's not the issue here. However, requiring a manufacturer/developer to design and release technology to weaken privacy protections is different. While this debate has temporarily been suspended, this issue will have to be resolved. Is it really about just one phone? I don't think so. See the next blog in this debate.
avatar

Vladimir Radunovic March 28, 2016

What we often disregard is that, besides security of the system/state, the essential component is the security of individuals. This goes from risks of terrorist attacks to risks of being hijacked or raped - and all those can be supported by digital means. There is nothing wrong with security service having the right to limit individual privacy (even though this too needs to be done through court order only) - like entering one's apartment; but in such cases we should be sure that a) this doesn't cause additional individual security of some persons b) this doesn't have disproportionate effect on many other individuals. Technology is quite different from traditional space in that sense: unlike unlocking the apartment, inserting backdoor to technology endangers privacy of masses, not of a single user only. More importantly, this doesn't only mean possibility of entering one's photo book - this means enabling others, like criminals, to also be able to peek into one's personal life more easily, which they use not for sake of amusement but for sake of criminal acts like extortion, profiling and robbery, or other assaults. The chain therefore looks like this: terrorist threat -> requesting to weaken security in technology -> inserting technology backdoor -> weakening security of equipment and services -> endangering privacy of masses -> endangering security of masses -> enabling additional criminal acts against individuals -> decreasing individual security of masses -> decreasing security. Such approach is counterproductive and doesn't increase individual and overall security but, on contrary, may decrease it.

Leave a comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Scroll to Top