The governments of Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States have recently made clear their intentions of forcing technology providers to provide lawful access to the encrypted communications of users (Saarinen, 2018). The proposal is part of the efforts of the involved governments to combat terrorism and crime, especially through the internet. The governments are looking forward to voluntary cooperation from the targeted companies, but there have been intentions to pursue legislative and enforcement measures if the companies impede the efforts (Saarinen, 2018). However, the efforts bring rise to the issue of personal and privacy rights of people, and the commitment of the member states to protect these rights (Saarinen, 2018). The creation of backdoors in the services and applications by the companies are the most likely loopholes to the intentions of the governments. This would be the perfect way of these governments introducing communication interception capabilities for the purposes of law enforcement. Nonetheless, this has been criticized by many security and cryptography experts to be a dangerous move. This paper uses the utilitarian, deontological, communitarian theories and to provide an explanation on why the move by the five governments is ethical.
The position taken by the governments is ethical. Their main aim is the protection of the people against cybercrime and terrorism that might be instigated through the internet in the current technological era. Utilitarian theory is one of the theories that was formulated by Jeremy Bentham, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill. The proposition of the theory is that the most basic criterion that should be used for judging an action is the utility of that action (Harry, 2013). The action or activity that has the greatest amount of utility, good, happiness, well-being or benefit to the highest number of people is the most appropriate action to be taken (Harry, 2013). In accordance with the utilitarian theory, the decision of these governments would have the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. The primary concern is with the illegal access of information by unauthorized people. However, the governments will establish mechanisms to protect against illegal access. The main focus of the governments is the avoidance of crime which usually leads to loss of lives and destruction of property, like 911 attacks. This can result in the widespread panic to the people of a country. Thus, the decision is ethical as it will result in the greatest benefit to many citizens of the involved countries because of the avoidance of the consequences of terrorism and cybercrime.
Additionally, we should consider the deontological theory that was proposed by Immanuel Kant. This theory suggests that there are rights and duties to act in a specific way and this is usually directed by pure reason. The correct action usually does not depend on the consequences for the utility or the general good, but on the adherence to the values and principles that make up a moral imperative originated in conscience (Waller, 2013). The decision of the governments is ethical, according to the deontological theory. The lawful access by the governments would be adhering to the moral principle of eliminating the vices of terrorism and cybercrime. Terrorism results in loss of many lives of innocent people which is against the moral principles and the rights of people to life. On the other hand, cybercrime is usually harassment of people and stealing from people what is rightfully theirs. Thus, the move from the governments adheres to the moral principles that are guided by pure reason.
The decision taken by these governments can also be considered to be ethical in accordance with the communitarian theory. This theory suggests that the source of ethics is not from the happiness of an individual or utility generated to the largest number of people. Instead, it suggests that the moral thinking of people has its source in the historical traditions of particular communities (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2014). People in a community may disagree on the ideas of what their community should be like. Nonetheless, these people have common values in matters such as health, education, and the security of the public (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2014). An example is the sector of public health that has been structured to promote shared values such as clean water, air, and the environment. The move by the government will ensure adherence to the shared values and ideas of the country because they aim to eliminate terrorism and keep people safe from cybercrime.
The risks of citizens’ fundamental rights of privacy and freedom of expression caused by abusive practices involving surveillance of the governments. Some citizens may think that it is not ethical to insist on gaining access to encryption data. They are entitled to protect their selves from this kind of practices. Their personal data and their communications are part of their private life, and as such should be treated. However, right of the community should always trump the rights of the individual and their right to privacy to guarantee the most of people.
Overall, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States have made the proposition of forcing technology companies to provide lawful access to encrypted communication for the purpose of fighting terrorism and cybercrime on the internet. The move has raised ethical questions among some people with regards to privacy and the rights of the individual. According to the utilitarian, deontological, and communitarian theories, the move is ethical because of the intention of protecting the most people and the moral principles behind it.
References
Hayry, M. (2013). Liberal utilitarianism and applied ethics. Routledge.
MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2014). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Nelson Education.
Saarinen, J. (2018, September 03). Five-Eyes nations to force encryption backdoors. Retrieved September 30, 2018, from https://www.itnews.com.au/news/five-eyes-nations-to-force-encryption-backdoors-511865
Waller, B. N. (2013). Consider Ethics: Pearson New International Edition: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. Pearson Higher Ed.