BlackBerry messaging service has hit the headlines. Some governments have threatened to ban this service if they are not given access to the content of messages emanating from or entering their country. These governments seek such access on grounds of national security, to track terrorist and other illegal activities. Research in Motion (RIM), the company owning BlackBerry, has claimed that it is unable to provide this facility as all messages are encrypted in a way that prevents even the company from accessing them. The encryption keys are technology-driven and idiosyncratic to each user. Here is a clear case of private, commercial interest in conflict with what is a social, or public, objective.
Things are, however, seldom black and white or, right and wrong. Indeed, people who fiercely guard their private space will agree that if one can somehow prevent innocent people from getting killed in terrorist acts, one should. They are in a dilemma, however, if the “somehow” involves collective action, or an action by some one else, that intrudes upon one’s private space. What to do if the only way one can prevent an act of terrorism is eavesdropping on the private conversations of would-be terrorists? What makes this even more complicated is that we have already subscribed to the notion that only an action is prosecutable, not the intention. Thus, one cannot be put in prison for wanting to commit a murder but not carrying it out! For then, every time you exclaim in disgust that you want to kill someone, you will have to go to prison.
However, it is highly probable that one can get everyone to agree with the pressure being put on RIM if the following two conditions hold: this is the only or, at least an important, way to prevent terrorist acts and, such eavesdropping on exchanged messages is meant only to catch terrorists. The first most people will agree on, the second many would be sceptical about. And, most unfortunately, the majority of these sceptics reside in precisely the countries that are threatening RIM with a ban on BlackBerry. The governments of these countries are not necessarily the ones who respect their citizens’ rights and the concomitant privacy they are entitled to. Many of these governments are not democratic and consider any opposition to the government an act of terror against the state. Even when they are democratic, as in India where phone tapping of political opponents allegedly occur with some regularity, the governments often subvert many of the rules that protect the privacy of individuals. In other words, if governments were more responsible with the powers vested in them by their citizens, much of the imbroglio surrounding the proposed ban on RIM could have been easily avoided. The issue really is not one of how a foreign company undermines the sovereign rights of a nation. Rather, it is more a test of how the citizens view their government.