Slashdot Mirror
Ethics in Scientific Research
call -151 writes: "There is an interesting NYT article `When Science Inadvertently Aids an Enemy' discussing how some of the "encryption should be free for everyone" attitudes are changing with the WTC attacks. The article makes some interesting points and it is good to see discussions like these in more of the mainstream, even if the tone has definitely changed recently." Well, the questions are being asked again, but most of the researchers dealing with these issues have already answered the questions for themselves.
I'm sure most of the posts here will scorch domestic policy on encryption and other personal liberties issues...yet tool around /. today and you'll also find hundreds of posters advocating stealing from their employers.
As a scientist let me say I understand the concerns of society. I wish that some software developers would realize that as our society becomes more digitized, the power of programming becomes greater.
Consider this. In the '40's a few great men/women created an awesome force with grave consequences, the nuclear bomb. A computer security scientist would never consider himself on this level of creation of power, nor should he. But what if a programmer develops a worm that destroys information perfectly, there by bring down an economy, possibly killing people? To go even farther, what if someone creates the technology that enables a terrorist attack, or enables that worm to exist?
As we go farther into the digital age, programming is going to have more and more power and influence. Imagine if physicists were to take the arrogant attitude of today's security developers and say, "If I can build it, I should and also tell everyone else how to do it!"
I just think that in some cases, we should really consider the consequences of our actions....
-Sean
Does the analogy extend to scientists?
The analogy does not hold. This is clear once you realize that science is a process of discovery, not of creation. A scientist is more like an explorer, discovering facts that were true long before they were discovered, facts that would eventually have been discovered by someone, facts that affect everyone, even the people who don't know them.
Newton should not be blamed for all the people who die from falling, just because he discovered the law of universal gravitation. Nor should he be blamed for ballistic missiles, which rely on his law for their operation.
A better analogy would be:
Should explorers who discover old mine fields or dangerous animals publish the fact? Or should they let others that follow blindly wander into the danger, unruffled but no safer in their ignorance.
-- MarkusQ
In Bin Laden's case encryption is moot since it appears he has effectively used low/no-tech techniques to distribute information, making him effectively invisible the CIA & NSA which relies almost completely on electronic surveilence.
In any case, if Joe Smith from Buttfuck, Texas has access to PGP source code and a C compiler, how can we put the genie back in the bottle? The reality is the CIA/NSA wants to stop strong encryption becoming ubiquitous, these guys know that it's impossible to take encryption away from the terrorists, but it sure would like to stop every man and his dog using it. And why is that? well, the NSA already intercepts all electronic communication in the U.S., despite the fact that it is illegal to do so. The NSA is shit scared of americans actually enforcing the no-snoop-without-a-court-order-law.