I think that what your arguing is that it is better to have a flawed
system that is easily and visibly abused, as this will cause an otherwise
ignorant population to become aware of the problem; that becuase and
educated minority are aware of and understand a way to properly retain
their rights, that they will not be vocal to the abuses of the flawed
system.
In terms of morals, I believe that it is RIGHT to create the software with
plausable deniability. You just can't stop there.
But, you're not the one in moral question. Why do we allow ourselves to
exist in a society where there is a problem of government beating down
your door and demanding your personal information?
And that's where I'll end this, before it descends into a political rant.
-Josh
> So here is my ethical question: Is creating software that provides
> plausible deniability a moral thing to do?
>
> Up until today, I had always thought the answer was yes, my private
> data is PRIVATE, and any software that helps me keep it private is
> good, in a power to the people sort of way. But now that I think about
> it, I wonder if the availability of software implementing plausible
> deniability is stopping people from engaging in important political
> activism. "Why should I campaign for laws preventing law enforcement
> agencies from demanding my decryption keys?" hypothetical person asks.
> "I have software that provides me with plausible deniability, so I'll
> never have to deal with negative consequences arising from perfectly
> legal demands for my private data."
>
> AFAIK, this is the situation in the UK: If you don't turn over your
> decryption keys to the police on demand, they can put you in jail.
>
> So, what do you think?
>
>
> Eric
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
|