Captured Message

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

Hostage Taken

Bloodbath at Rizal Park
 

WE ARE  put on the international spotlight again for a damning reason: bungling a hostage-taking crisis involving foreign tourists – so bad, so wrong, and so bloody messy.

I don’t know about the Rules of Engagement in this situation but it would not take a five-star general to see the gravity of it and the need to quickly resolve it. This did not involve a bolo-wielding street guy with just one or two hostages. There was a former police officer with an M-16 and perhaps a load of ammunition who could swiftly wipe off all his hostages with a swing of his automatic weapon. He was very much armed and dangerous. Any clear opportunity to contain him should have been taken when his imposed deadline had lapsed and no clear positive resolution was in sight. The snipers should have accomplished their job much earlier. What's the life of one deranged person anyway compared to 22 others and our (already suffering) national image?

A lot of questions have been thrown after the tragedy: Did we send the best negotiator? Who was giving orders? Did the police have full control of the situation?

The answers to all these questions would help us understand what went wrong. I am particularly concerned about the last because I believe everyone contributed to making the situation worse – the police, the media, and the public.

Hostage-takers are desperate in getting attention – that’s what they primarily need in order to sound off their grievances. If we make a hostage situation a media circus, then the hostage-taker thinks he has succeeded in his goal.

The media’s presence in a hostage situation can be a boon or a bane. It depends on how the police are able to control them and not the other way around. The media, for instance, should be kept at a distance from the crime scene and should not get hold of sensitive information that could jeopardize the negotiation.

The “curious” public should also be held off. How a bicycling man was able to get near the bus was indicative of how loose the police cordon was. Those claiming to be relatives and friends of the people involved in the hostage-taking should be restrained from making a scene of their own.

We trusted that our police could guarantee that no life would be lost at the end of the hostage crisis. We had experienced so many of this that we never seemed to have any doubt. They say nothing can go wrong as long as there is negotiation and that there is virtue in patience.

What we did not realize, however, is that sometimes we cannot afford to wait for the end to come, especially when so much is at stake. It is a judgment call - a tough one to make. But we have to, or it will be too late. 

Sorry, pilot error

The recent diaspora of Philippine Airlines (PAL) pilots has caused so much trouble not only for the company but also for the general public. While these pilots have a reason to gripe for receiving lesser salary and compensation than their counterparts in other airlines abroad, it remains their duty to honor their commitment to PAL and much more to the company’s clients whose life or business may be at stake every time they book a flight with the airline. So much so that this has become such a big issue even if there are alternative airlines or means of transportation available to the public.

The root of the problem was probably the failure to communicate. PAL has a labor union and it should have done something if the pilots have issues to be brought up to the management. As no smoke ever came out of PAL’s chambers before the incident, it means there were no issues at all to settle. Hence, it is just a matter of the pilots not being able to communicate what they want or what they think they deserve to PAL's decision-makers.   

Or maybe the temptation to change ship, or plane to be more appropriate, was too irresistible. In this case, partly to blame are the other airlines that dangle golden offers to pilots still under contract with their companies. This is piracy and it should be dealt with harshly by the industry’s international regulatory body.

No matter where we look at it, however, the pilots have made a huge personal gamble in their decision to just suddenly discontinue their service to PAL. They may have every right to take off and seek for a greener pasture elsewhere. But recklessly abandoning their duty is totally uncalled for, only making them soar to the height of irresponsibility.