On 2 December 2015, fourteen innocent individuals were massacred in a shooting during a Christmas party at San Bernardino, California. Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, were the perpetrators who carried out this Islamic State-inspired attack. They were subsequently eliminated in a shootout by police as they attempted to flee from the scene of the shooting.
The focus of the investigation has now shifted towards the information stored on a locked and encrypted iPhone 5c owned by the terrorists. The FBI has so far been unsuccessful in their attempts to access the contents on the iPhone due to advanced encryption technology. They have hence sought help from Apple, it is said that FBI has asked the Apple to help create a "backdoor" which could potentially allow hackers to crack into any iPhone in the world.
So far Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple has gone on record to say the following: "What is at stake here is: Can the government compel Apple to write software that we believe would make hundreds of millions of customers vulnerable around the world, including the US and also trample civil liberties that are at the basic foundation at what this country was made on?"
This message will come as a matter of relief for many Apple users, it will be heartening for them to know that the company that makes their product fiercely guards their privacy. But there are vital issues that everybody from Apple users to the general public need to think about when it comes to prosecuting the war on terror. This is not only applicable to the San Bernardino attack but as a general principle. This is an ugly truth of the world we live in, we know that this will not be the last terrorist attack of its kind and this will also not be the last time that an intelligence agency will want to acquire encrypted information stored on or transferred between any electronic storage and communication devices.
So are we willing to give up our basic rights such as privacy to enable the authorities to keep tab on terrorists? Do we give the carte blanche to intelligence agencies so they can do as they please, open any phone, intercept every chat message, monitor every social media post and snoop through every phone conversation per their wish? If we accept any compromises on our basic rights have we already bowed down and lost what is vital to our being? Do we turn our backs on the investigative and intelligence agencies and say an emphatic ‘NO’ to all their requests for interception and backdoor cracks for the protection of our rights? Would we apply the same rules if human lives are at stake? Would we apply the same strict rules of not compromising with our rights if our near and dear ones are in peril? There are no clear answers to these questions. The moral dilemma here is quite similar to the question of application of torture as a method of interrogation for terrorists. It may seem an abominable idea but it may work in extreme situations.
So how does the US government or any government deal with a situation such as this? Also, how does Apple or any other product owner respond to a request such as this? First the US government approaches Apple and give them the phone. The personnel at Apple open up the phone, generate all the information and provide it to the US government. This information must strictly be available to authorized personnel only. This supply of information must be restricted to this specific case only. It is also important that Apple DOES NOT give the US government the so ‘master key’ that will allow them to open up every phone.
For governments, it is important that there are strong laws instituted to prevent easy access to private material. If there is a suspect that needs to be tracked, there must be due process. This means explicit permission from at least two independent authorities who can judge the situation dispassionately and decide the merits. It is important that the process be swift but it is equally important that the process be fair.
We have fought wars before, but those wars were restricted to geographical territories. We knew where the enemy lived and we launched offensive attack on their lands. Once their infrastructure was destroyed and their lives were lost, it was clear that victory was ours. But this is an ideological war, the enemy is not restricted to any specific location and the enemy is not always beyond. They are ruthless and will not distinguish between armed forces and civilians. They will not even spare even women and children. We cannot win this war by launching drones on specific enemy terrorist, you may eliminate some of them or even a majority of them. But their message of violence and destruction is already out there and there will be many in geographically diverse locations who have been radicalized by this message and are willing to wage war. We have seen this in Paris and Australia. It often take less than ten men to wreak havoc.
We have to therefore empower our intelligence services to enable them to do their jobs to protect us. But we must ensure that our civil liberties, that distinguishes us from the enemy is maintained.
Comments
Post a Comment