Technology companies are neither legally nor ethically obliged to implement backdoors in their products for the government or government agencies for the sake of government surveillance or other motives. Regardless of the reason behind why the government desires these backdoors, citizens of this country have a right to privacy of communication and personal conduct as long as it is within the bounds of the law. As this article here states, “We must ensure both the fundamental right of people to engage in private communications as well as the protection of the public. One of the bedrock principles upon which we rely to guide us is the principle of judicial authorization: that if an independent judge finds reason to believe that certain private communications contain evidence of a crime, then the government can conduct a limited search for that evidence.” This is just one example of the ways in which our government is designed to protect its people from unfair abuse of political power. Without some form of due process, nothing stands in the way of preventing excessive abuse of government tools to spy on the general public in the name of national security.
Companies (such as Apple) are ethically responsible for protecting the privacy of their users. Apple, in their recent letter to their customers, expanded on their beliefs that backdoors to encryption and security and privacy are not in the best interest of the consumer, and that they would not assist in developing such tools. Furthermore, if Apple created such a backdoor, there is next to nothing that would be able to prevent its abuse by third parties such as competition in the marketplace or by hackers seeking to exploit these security flaws. In protecting privacy, Apple is not inherently enabling violent or harmful activities. In fact, they are totally compliant with the FBI’s lawful requests and court orders. In today’s world, companies such as Apple service the masses in their endeavors to shelter the people’s right to privacy rather than the ability of a few to perpetrate acts of terror or harm on the rest of the population. Furthermore, without lawful order, Apple or any other software company cannot be compelled to create backdoors or hand over user information anyways, and to do so could severely damage their user base and hold serious repercussions for the company.
It is hard to justify allowing room for people who mean harm to others, but the protection of the rights of many are too important to sacrifice. The “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” is a weak argument for the removal of personal liberties. Just because you are not partaking in anything that is explicitly illegal, it does not mean you are totally willing to let the government or anyone else search through your private life and information to confirm it. It is the burden of the government or the accuser to provide some evidence of illegal activity or otherwise before any form of search or violation of privacy can be used to confirm or dispel whether the individual has committed any crime. Forgoing these rights in the name of safety is a slippery slope, and sacrifices too much of the individual’s personal liberty. Additionally, only law abiding citizens would be the ones affected by this surveillance. Should they choose to do so, the miscreants and evildoers will always find a way to work around the system, and possibly even exploit the surveillance and back doors to their own ends.
ethics101withkylewordpresscom 