Computer science
Personal privacy and security are two important rights to citizens of every country, particularly the United States. These fundamental rights have attracted an endless debate because of the challenges involved in fulfilling any of them. Practically, it is impossible to enhance either of them without affecting the other. Technology companies such as Apple, Google, and Facebook have not been on good terms with USA law enforcement agencies such as NSA (The U.S. National Security Agency) and FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigations) since 2014. On the government side, this problem has been due to technology’s introduction limiting access to personal information without the owners’ consent. The government has been applying all the possible legal means to ensure that it can access any information necessary for security purposes. Nevertheless, the IT companies have expressed dissatisfaction with the government requests due to the increased insecurity issues affecting online content. The companies uphold that encryption is an efficient and effective way of enhancing personal privacy. However, this does not reckon well with government agencies entrusted with the citizens’ security and safety because they argue that personal privacy does not overshadow national security. The above proclamation can be justified by discussing issues like The above statement is justified by discussing various issues in respect to encryption such as deniable, undeniable, and plausible deniability, the reason for NSA, FBI, and IT companies participation in encryption, and whether the FBI should compel IT companies to access personal information without the users’ agreement.
The U.S national security is threatened by terrorism and the world health pandemic. Terrorism has become a major problem in the country’s economic, social, and political development (Diab, 2018). From 1994 up to 2020, the rate of terrorism has been increasing as indicated by the graphs below
To address this issue, strict security measures are required, even if it means compromising personal privacy. Through its law enforcement agencies, the government should ensure that everyone is safe through increased surveillance to control the terrorist operations, which are majorly facilitated technologically by mobile applications such as Facebook and WhatsApp. Concerning COVID 19 pandemic, countries try hard to control the disease’s infection rate through modern technology. Due to the nature of the problem, it may hard to comply with privacy guidelines.
Next, it is the government’s role to safeguard citizens’ general welfare as articulated twice in the U.S constitution. Privacy does not feature anywhere in the constitution, but it is mentioned in the amendments. In this country, the constitution is supreme to all other laws because it expresses the people’s will, and in any law conspiracy, it gives the final decision. For this reason, national security should never be sacrificed for the sake of protecting personal privacy. Enforcement of the law maximizes on majority benefit but not personal inclinations. Enhanced security measures are essential in preventing loss of life from either terrorism attacks of health pandemics.
Additionally, national security enhances pluralism and inclusivity in society. America being a country of many communities defined by different cultures, statuses, races, and ethnicities, should prioritize its national security over personal privacy. Due to these social and cultural differences, the government should prepare to deal with all forms of atrocities in the community. In such a society, people’s polarization may be common, and by preferring national security to personal privacy will neutralize any force against inclusivity and pluralism. Effective security measures help regulate malicious information on social media hence managing society’s crime levels.
However, law enforcement agencies should understand the following when trying to promote peace and security at the expense of personal privacy. First, all citizens’ rights, whether enshrined by the constitution or amendments, are equal, and they should be protected alike without discrimination. Therefore, the right to personal privacy should be upheld at all times because undermining it could have severe legal outcomes. According to the 4th Amendment, citizens have discretion over whatever information they should disclose to anyone. This right limits the government from collecting information from the citizens because it is against privacy (Manpearl, 2017).
Moreover, government agencies involved in collecting personal data should use the legal means available just as they do when maintaining law and order in other areas. Using such channels will ensure that the rights of everyone are equally protected. It also simplifies the agencies’ work because everyone will be more than willing to cooperate with the government because they feel more secure. Therefore, due to this issue’s complexity, the government and the IT companies should work out a multifaceted approach for addressing the challenges. In simple terms, the plan should neither favor personal privacy nor national security.
In the case of the United States v. Fricosu, I support the court ruling, which required the defendant to furnish the government with decrypted information. The government was willing to negotiate with the accused because it did not force her to produce the password but requested her to facilitate their access through entering the password on behalf of the prosecuting side. Since she refused the offer and the information required was important to testify the allegations, it was lawful for the court to favor the government.
Deniable encryption is a technique that allows the sender to demonstrate the presence of the suspected message without the right decryption key. It enables the rightful sender to disprove the message (Jia et al., 2017). The encrypted message may be decrypted to various messages by the receivers based on the password utilized. Plausible deniability occurs when the sender credibly denies data encryption through cooperating with the accuser. Undeniable encryption arises when the sender fails to deny the existence of encryption of a particular quantity of data.
NSA, FBI, Apple, Google, and other IT industry leaders are key stakeholders in the topic because each has a part to play. NSA and FBI are the key law enforcement agencies tasked with the implementation of government policies on security. Over the past few years, FBI leaders, among other U.S. intelligence leaders, have been pleading with the IT companies to allow the government to access personal information for legal purposes whenever the need arises. In a statement issued on October 8, 2015, the FBI director indicated that the government had no plans to enforce legislation on the companies but wanted special access. NSA has been vigilant on the type of information in social apps and websites despite having been barred by the congress from accessing personal information without consent. The agency’s efforts can be confirmed by its 2016 annual report on security issues, which indicated that more than 151 million phone calls were investigated for security purposes. On the other hand, Google, Apple, Facebook, and other IT companies have promoted personal privacy at national security expense. Their statements have demonstrated the challenges experienced when the government is given exceptional access to personal information. Apple, for instance, through its CEO, communicated that allowing decryption to the government would result in increased cyber risks to personal data. Due to the threats connected with unauthorized access, Apple has invented an encryption logo, as demonstrated below:
FBI should require third party companies to maintain access to communication devices and services. This requirement is provided by the case All Writs Act and the United States Supreme court ruling on the United States v. New Yolk Tel. Co., whereby the FBI requested the court to compel the company to assist it in accessing phone calls information to investigate a certain gambling business. The judge argued that the company was bound to comply with the ruling, validated by the All Writs Act and Congressional intent (Cauthen, 2017). The ruling was affirmed by White’s state, “[t]he power of federal courts to impose duties upon third parties is not without limits; unreasonable burdens may not be imposed. We conclude, however, that the order issued here against respondent was clearly authorized by the All Writs Act and was consistent with the intent of Congress.”
Encryption does not reckon well with the US government agencies entrusted with the citizens’ security and safety because they argue that personal privacy does not overshadow national security. The U.S national security is threatened by terrorism and the world health pandemic. Next, it is the government’s role to safeguard citizens’ general welfare as articulated twice in the U.S constitution. Additionally, national security enhances pluralism and inclusivity in society. However, law enforcement agencies should understand 1) all citizens’ rights, whether enshrined by the constitution or amendments, are equal, and they should be protected alike without discrimination. And 2) government agencies involved in collecting personal data should use the legal means available just as they do when maintaining law and order in other areas.
References
Cauthen, R. H. (2017). The Fifth Amendment and Compelling Unencrypted Data, Encryption Codes, and Passwords. Am. J. Trial Advoc., 41, 119.
Diab, R. (2018). Protecting the Right to Privacy in Digital Devices: Reasonable Search on Arrest and at the Border. UNBLJ, 69, 96.
Jia, S., Xia, L., Chen, B., & Liu, P. (2017, October). Deftly: Implementing plausibly deniable encryption in the flash translation layer. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 2217-2229).
Manpearl, E. (2017). Preventing Going Dark: A Sober Analysis and Reasonable Solution to Preserve Security in the Encryption Debate. U. Fla. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 28, 65.