A moral dilemma

Tuesday's terrorist attack in the heart of Brussels has once again brought to the fore the issue of constant vigilance when it comes to national security. We in Sri Lanka learnt this lesson a long time ago. Even then, not all terror attacks could be prevented. But the law enforcement agencies were able to prevent many incidents.

As the saying goes, "Governments have to be lucky all the time, terrorists have to be lucky just once". The Paris and Brussels attacks have shown us that Governments need to be ahead of the terrorist groups by gathering and sharing intelligence on terror cells and networks. In doing so, it may sometimes be necessary to curtail or forego certain freedoms that we take for granted. This is never ideal, but it could be an answer in extreme cases such as worldwide terrorism.

Checkpoints

For example, when checkpoints were everywhere during the conflict period in Sri Lanka, the personnel on duty almost always asked as to where the occupants in a given vehicle were headed to. In theory, they had no right to ask this question because the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement for every citizen. In other words, where one is headed is nobody's business. But in the real world, this is not how it happens. Information on where you are headed may be useful for the checkpoint personnel and besides, by having a conversation with you they can "read" you for any signs of nervousness or fear. At that moment, without even thinking about it, we had given up a fundamental freedom. No one lost sleep over that.

The question of privacy versus national security has again gained attention due to the spate of terror attacks witnessed worldwide in recent times. Furthermore, Edward Snowden's exposure of snooping by Governments and Julian Assange's WikiLeaks exposure of secret Government documents added fuel to the fire, with privacy advocates up in arms against what they called a massive invasion of privacy and fundamental freedoms.

But there is no such thing as absolute privacy. The State has very nearly all the information it needs about us, from the date of birth. Your bank manager probably knows more about you than you do. Most people have absolutely no hesitation about putting almost their entire life (not to mention minute by minute updates on their children) on Facebook for the whole world to see, yet they whine when the Government wants to know their blood type. We know very well that web-based email clients employ 'robots' to read our emails and generate advertisements that match the contents of the email in question, yet we carry on regardless. CCTV cameras are everywhere, recording our every move.

Tragedy

Nevertheless, it is wrong for Governments to intrude on our lives unnecessarily, but there may be exceptional circumstances that warrant such decisions. For example, could the Belgian authorities have prevented this tragedy if they had even limited access to real-time phone conversations and emails of its citizens? This is a very difficult question to answer given the ethical dimensions, but it is food for thought. Governments must continue surveillance to protect their citizens, but what are the options available?

A good case in point is the ongoing dispute between Apple and the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) over the unlocking of the Apple iPhone 5C used by terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook in the December 2 San Bernardino shootings which killed 14 people and wounded 22. The case is now before the Californian courts. The FBI wants Apple's help to unlock the phone and gain access to the data contain within, while Apple says that creating a "backdoor" for accessing data in this case for the FBI may set a dangerous precedent and compromise the privacy of all its customers. Apple says that there is no guarantee that law enforcement agencies will not want to use such a system at all times, even when there is no real need for it. In the latest twist in this saga, the FBI has said an unnamed outside party has provided investigators with a method that might provide access to the phone's data. It now wants time to explore the alternative way to get into the iPhone.

Encryption

At the heart of the matter is a concept called encryption, which is basically a technique that makes it virtually impossible for an unauthorised party to gain access to data stored physically in a device and also in the cloud under that user's name. Apple gives users the option of setting up a passcode to protect their phone mainly in the event of loss or theft. The phone gets permanently disabled after the tenth wrong attempt at the passcode. The FBI wants apple to find a way to bypass this and go straight into the phone through another software code. Speaking at a launch event for a new iPhone variant on Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said the "iPhone is a deeply personal device that holds private information, and no one should have access to that but you".

Many public opinion polls are evenly split between both sides, but almost all the technology companies including Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Amazon and Twitter have upheld Apple's position. Experts however say that the attacks in Brussels may swing more people over to the Government's (FBI's) side and in fact, several presidential hopefuls in the USA share the view that Apple should cooperate with the FBI.

The question here is whether Apple (or a third party) can break into this specific phone without essentially having a ripple effect where the same software code can be used to unlock others' phones. If that is possible, there is little doubt that it should be tried. There should be no room for terrorists to operate with impunity. In fact, one commentator opined that since Farook was a terror suspect, the normal privacy laws should not apply to him and the phone manufacturer should abide by a court ruling on the matter.

Test

This case will be an acid test for Governments and tech manufacturers around the world on balancing the interests of human rights including privacy with those of national security. In the end, Governments have to ensure the greatest good of the greatest number. Terrorists want to take away that most fundamental of freedoms - the right to live - and societies should decide on the best ways to prevent their abhorrent mission. Some compromises may thus be necessary in tackling terrorism.