Should any designer of an operating system for a smartphone or tablet that is manufactured, leased or sold in the United States be legally required to ensure that data on such devices is accessible pursuant to a search warrant?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TRANSPARENCY VS. PRIVACY IN THE U.S.
Transparency vs Privacy in the US Transparency vs Privacy in the US The Current State of Transparency vs Privacy in the US Most Americans*...
-
The Internet Of Things Figure 1, Guru99 The Internet of Things The Internet of Things (IOT) describes the network of devices that have im... -
The Debate over Regulating Data Broke rs Introduction The American Data Privacy and Protection Act (H.R. ...
-
Should the U.S. Congress statutorily recognize a “right to be forgotten”?
I would have to straight up say no. This is because I don't believe that it is the designer's job to worry about the legality of the product. I believe that the Designers job is for looks and marketing of this product and the functionality and legal status is up to a software engineer. The designer can have an opinion or help with ensuring the data, but I don't believe it should be their job.
ReplyDeleteI would say no. I think the designer of the operating system should ensure that this being a product that an individual will likely use for personal purposes, the design of the system should be tailored to keep the device personal. In spite of this, I do think that there should be warrants and such to search accounts and especially services like texting, but I do not think that you should be able to make all data accessible for a warrant. If anything, these things should be treated as different categories overall. For example, you could try and get a warrant to have the text message data sent over so you can parse over it. But for more personal things, I think that the device should be designed to store those things securely.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a designer of an operating system should not be required to add a "backdoor" or other access into their programs such that law enforcement can access the information because the developer is an employee or owner of a company, and his interest is to make a good product. He is not an employee of the government, so he should not have to worry about legal cases. The operating system or app or whatever is being developed is a tool. Just because terrorists or others with ill intentions can use this tool does not mean that the developer should have to worry about this. For example, if terrorists are using Instagram to DM each other about terrorist plans, they are using Instagram as a tool for communication. Terrorism is not the purpose of Instagram, but it can be used for communication for terrorist purposes. How can developers of Instagram provide law enforcement with the chat logs without compromising the private information of all users of the app? If Instagram did not exist, the terrorists could still communicate through verbal means. Instagram is merely a tool that made the communication easier. Developers have no obligation to help law enforcement with their investigations, and should not compromise the privacy of their programs by providing law enforcement with personal data.
ReplyDelete