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:

  1. 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
  2. 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:



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:



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.