Ethical Arguments Against Strong Encryption

While privacy in general is seen as desirable, so we need to take a closer look at the ethical questions that hover around the use encryption technologies. To get a proper assessment of such things, we must consider not only the claims, but the moral foundation upon which this is based. What then, are the main moral justifications for encryption? What are the arguments against it? Strong encryption is

The key to good security. But how strong is too strong? Is the point where encryption threatens safety in place to preserve the?

To simply assert that one has a right is not sufficient grounds for the court on its own. Where there is an immediate danger to a person's right to security, the rights of others will be removed. This principle can

To hide from public scrutiny are the criminals or those with suspicious motives do. "Why?" They ask, are you concerned that government agents snooping around on your hard drive, read your email, or looking at your Facebook profile? Only criminals should be concerned about such monitoring. On the other side of the "nothing to hide" -logikken are defenders of privacy rights that limit invasions in private domains. It has always been a weak balance between privacy and public sphere. This balance is threatened by the ever-increasing flow of data flows over electronic

Arguably, there may be cases where something like this can be desirable. For example, most agree that the production and distribution of child pornography should be restricted. Encryption makes it easier to escape the consequences of such actions. The debate should then be what behavior is most undesirable, how we calms them down and what the adverse effects may be.

If the state were to argue that encryption goes against national security, they must clarify exactly how they contradict each other, how encryption undermine it, and the social benefits being replaced with safety. If encryption is justified, the service providers offer it as a moral responsibility? Did they have a duty to report criminal behavior?

Conclusion

While revelations about NSA's surveillance led to privacy concerns and talk of a "surveillance state", there are also many who believe that we need this to protect against future acts of terrorism. The revelations and the debate that followed made people realize that monitoring seems to pervade all areas of life, public space, work environment, and even private life. There is little doubt that the pursuit of effective counterterrorism strategies is not only smart, it is also a duty that rests on states. The rights for victims of terrorism and the state's duty to protect them is at the heart of any debate about the legitimacy and proportionality of