In the wake of the Westminster Bridge terrorist attack carried out early this year, there have been calls for WhatsApp to release messages sent by the perpetrator via the service to authorities, after it was found Adrian Ajao sent messages using the app in the minutes leading up to the attack. British Home Secretary said that it was "completely unacceptable” that WhatsApp was allowing terrorist units to communicate in total secrecy; especially when knowing that police and federal security units are unable to access the highly encrypted communications (Rayner, 2017). Whilst this seems totally archaic of Whats App and blatant perversion of the course of justice, I can too understand the catch-22 faced by these large corporations. If seen to be weak and allowing governments and authorities to access private conversations at will, they lose the trust of users and potentially see a loss in profits. In response to the increasing number of attacks and criminal activity facilitated by these encrypted services, the Australian Parliament have been pushing for a greater level of cooperation between messaging companies and police investigations. Malcom Turnbull addressed the issue in parliament saying that:
"The privacy of a terrorist can never be more important than public safety - never. And online civil society is as achievable as an offline one, and the rights and protections of the vast, overwhelming majority of Australians, must outweigh the rights of those who will do them harm" (Butler, 2017).
Many fear that if laws regarding authorities access to privately held information are loosened that the government will be creating back doors that will decrease the security of interactions had online (Claypoole, 2014). Being able to see both sides to the argument I believe that companies have a moral obligation to assist security agencies with investigations to divulge information and interactions held on their platform, should they be relevant to an investigation. I too think it is important that a level of sanctity is upheld regarding the right to privacy of citizens. It will be interesting to see how this debate moves forward in the coming months and years as communication technology develops and the line between what is to be considered private or information of public interest becomes increasingly blurred.
REFERENCES:
Claypoole, T. (2014). Privacy and Social Media. Business Law Today, p.3.
Rayner, G. (2017). WhatsApp accused of giving terrorists 'a secret place to hide' as it refuses to hand over London attacker's messages. The Telegraph.
Butler, J. (2017). [online] Huffpost. Available at: http://The Government Wants Access To Encrypted Messaging Apps And Social Media [Accessed 18 Jul. 2017].
