• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>First Monday >The ethics of unbreakable encryption: Rawlsian privacy and the San Bernardino iPhone
【24h】

The ethics of unbreakable encryption: Rawlsian privacy and the San Bernardino iPhone

机译：牢不可破的加密的道德：Rawlsian隐私和San Bernardino iPhone

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Inspired by the 2016 case of the encrypted Apple iPhone used by alleged terrorists in the San Bernardino, Calif. attack, this paper explores the question of whether the use of completely unbreakable encryption online or off-line would be considered ethical by the political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls is widely acknowledged as having played an important role in how we perceive freedom and liberty in Western democracies today, and his work on justice, fairness and liberty appears to be a great source of knowledge for politicians, policy-makers and activists. Several recent events and threats to national security of a technological nature have raised ethical questions about the relationship between state and citizen and how technological power should be divided between these two parties, particularly when it comes to the right to privacy. However, in contrast with a wide-spread perception of Rawls’ work, this article shows that there are cases in which Rawls’ principles actually place a limitation on liberty in these matters. This paper presents a thought experiment in which it becomes clear that Rawls’ advocacy for liberty did not extend to cases in which social cooperation in a well-ordered society would be obstructed. Based on a study of Rawls’ work, the author concludes that whereas Rawls would consider strong encryption both necessary and ethical, completely unbreakable encryption would be considered a violation of social cooperation and thus indefensible for Rawls.
机译：受到2016年的2016年案例的加密Apple iPhone，在加利福尼亚州圣贝纳迪诺涉嫌恐怖分子使用的恐怖分子。攻击，本文探讨了在线或离线是否使用完全不可用的加密的问题是由政治哲学家约翰被认为是道德的。罗尔斯。罗尔斯被广泛承认，在我们今天在西方民主国家的自由和自由发挥着重要作用，以及他对正义，公平和自由的工作似乎是政治家，政策制定者和活动家的伟大知识来源。最近的一些事件和技术性质安全的威胁已经提出了关于国家和公民之间关系的道德问题以及技术能力如何在这两缔约方之间分开，特别是在涉及隐私权的时候。然而，与对Rawls的工作的广泛看法相比，本文表明，有些情况下，Rawls的原则实际上在这些问题上对自由进行了限制。本文提出了一个思想实验，清楚的是，罗尔斯对自由的宣传并未延伸到案件，其中在一个有序社会中受阻的情况。根据对罗尔斯的工作研究，作者得出结论，而罗尔斯将考虑强烈加密，完全不可用的加密将被视为违反社会合作，因此对罗尔不可侵染。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号