PSST - Ethical Considerations
Over the years, and particularly after the tragic September 11 attacks, individual
liberties have come under increasing attack.
I have seen two distinct mind-sets on the issue of privacy:
- Society is becoming sicker and more violent. Terrorists are getting smarter.
We can no longer feel safe with the freedoms we've had, because unscrupulous
people will take advantage of these freedoms to inflict harm and evade
detection. Freedom and privacy are luxuries we can no longer afford.
AND
- Privacy and freedom are indefeasible, self-evident human rights. Quoting
Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.". Clamping down on
individual freedoms and privacy will hurt the many, and not effectively reduce
crime, because the criminals and terrorists will just get smarter.
Needless to say, I have positioned myself staunchly in the latter camp.
I hold dogmatically to the proposition that freedom of expression, freedom of
association, freedom of communication and personal privacy are absolute, indefeasible
human rights.
To those who accuse me, in writing and distributing this program, of facilitating
child pornography, terrorism, crime etc, I respond as follows:
- Persuing objectionable people by clamping down on mass freedoms is attacking the
symptoms of the problem, and not the root causes.
- Terrorists, child-pornographers and other criminals are extremely highly motivated.
They mostly do their homework, and are aware of the legal regimes in their countries
of residence. As draconian "Big Brother" laws get passed, these undesirables will
simply procure or develop new technologies, and new methods of doing business.
So in the end, it's just an arms race.
- Yes - PSST can be used to facilitate crime. But don't forget that knives, which
can be used to prepare food for the starving, can also be used to kill and maim.
Cars can be used to transport people to/from their legitimate work, or facilitate
escape from crime scenes. Electricity can be used to power hospitals, or to
torture and kill people.
So the morality of any given tool or object, and the ethical accountability for its
development, is based on whether it can be used in a non-infringing context.
For example, petrol can be used to commit arson and murder. But it can also be used
for energy and transport. Therefore, if arson happens, nobody goes after the petrol
retailer.
But in the case of nerve gases, the justifications are much weaker. Anyone who possesses
such material is clearly up to no good.
So now, the question becomes:
Are there any situations where valid justifications exist for using PSST
instead of other non-encrypted chat software?
To this question, I would answer an emphatic yes.
Consider the following possible scenarios:
- A civil servant discovers extensive corrupt practices taking place in her
department. She has also discovered that her ISP makes archives of users' internet
traffic available to this department, and also that this department is even
able to obtain phone taps. A friend and colleague of hers in another city
is also concerned about this corruption. They have to work together to be
able to gather enough evidence before they can blow the whistle.
-
A man is framed by police for a crime he did not commit. While released on bail,
he needs to be able to communicate in real time with his lawyer, plus other
experts, to gather the evidence needed to secure his acquittal. He suspects the
police have taps on his phone, and are uplifting internet traffic archives from
his ISP. Unless he can communicate privately with several people in different
cities, he'll be looking at a long jail term, or even the death penalty.
-
A political activist needs to communicate with researchers, media and other
activists. He has been harassed by intelligence operatives in the past, and
even won a court case against them for abuses he suffered in their custody. But
he knows he's on their watch lists. The success of his work depends totally
on private communication.
-
A woman, while travelling on business, is going through a relationship crisis
with her same-sex partner. She was unable to resolve the issues before departing,
and needs access to private communication with her partner, so they can work
through the issues as best they can. The only computers she has access to are
at her place of business, where the network administrator has a bad reputation
for monitoring and gossiping about people's online activities. If details of
her conversations are exposed, she can suffer harsh discrimination, even get fired.
It would be hard to argue that none of these situations are plausible and
legitimate. Therefore, PSST definitely has a place.
Returning to the scenario of criminals. I believe strongly that clamping down on
mass freedoms and privacy is no way to check the crimes of a few.
Criminals are well versed in encryption technology. The largest crime gangs already
have on their payroll entire teams of counter-intelligence experts, and access to
some of the best programming talent available.
And, I am of the conviction that by molesting the freedom and privacy of ordinary people,
a government actually contributes to crime. Most normal people totally hate intrusion,
and will resent a government which breaches these rights. I hold that, in a society
where people are all treated as potential criminals, a percentage of borderline
individuals will cross the line and actually commit crimes, where in a more liberal
society they would feel more content and trusted, and behave within the law.