WHAT WOULD you rather have: A phone that cannot send messages or one that can send messages but is open to the prying eyes of the government?
The people of India, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia – countries which are against the use of Blackberry handset’s encrypted messaging – are facing this unenviable dilemma.
On the one hand, these governments are arguing Blackberry’s use of the Research in Motion (RIM) network that boasts of having very strong security architecture is vulnerable to exploitation by terrorists and criminals in their illegal operations. So they want RIM to “open up” or be banned in their countries.
On the other hand, RIM is concerned that giving the government snooping powers would jeopardize business transactions through mobile phones and is an affront to the privacy of Blackberry users. It says it cannot compromise the strict security requirements of its enterprise customers around the world.
I believe these governments are too paranoid and do not know who their real enemies are that they bent their stress and frustrations on things that are indirectly, and probably even remotely, linked to their fears.
This policy of banning Blackberry’s encrypted messaging is too restrictive that it encroaches upon the people’s right to privacy. The use of national security as an issue against the use of secure communications platform is even misplaced and irrelevant because there is no “clear and present danger” in ordinary exchange of messages.
The governments cannot make use of the open line of communications as their intelligence source. They should monitor suspected terrorists or criminals through other means of surveillance and it is only when they have gathered enough evidence that they should be allowed to tap conversations or request decrypting of messages – which are allowed in other countries like the United States with proper court order.
The issue here is not really about Blackberry or RIM. This is an issue on trust.
A government who does not trust its people does not deserve their trust either. Just let the people practice and enjoy their freedom. Let them choose whether they want Blackberry or Nokia; whether they want a classic or a smart phone; whether they want to send messages through secure or unsecured channel.
The government need not spy on people because they will be known by the choices they make.
--
Reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10866417
3 comments:
mmm. I would like to react on the first part of your blog, it got me thinking.
"WHAT WOULD you rather have: A phone that cannot send messages or one that can send messages but is open to the prying eyes of the government?"
I really can't choose, seriously.
On the first one, what's the use of it? but in this case they could still use the voice call service though. ONLY that.
and the other one, I won't allow it, I mean, unless they have reasonable cause to pry on my messages... BUT knowing that my phone is really for personal and private communication.. I DON'T THINK SO. I'm really thankful that I live in a country where no such banning is being implemented.
good argument. but i disagree with it. true, people have the right to protect their privacy, but then again, citizen's actions needs to be monitored to protect the national interest and security. we, as citizens are generally free, but there is a certain part of our rights that we give up in favor of the government to protect our common interests like in our life, liberty and property =)
In (Katz v. United States in 1963), the Constitution only protects reasonable expectations of privacy. If you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your email, then the examination of the contents of your email by anyone for any purposes is not an invasion of privacy.
I think, the ban on the use of blackberry finds its justification on national interest and security which is evidently supreme than the right to privacy of communication.
Post a Comment