BlackBerry: Too Secure For Government Spooks?

It has been a busy month so far for executives at Research in Motion, the Canadian maker of the BlackBerry smartphone.

In early August the United Arab Emirates announced it was planning to block RIM’s BlackBerry handsets from sending emails, accessing the Internet, and delivering instant messages. Likewise Saudi Arabia said it would prevent the use of the Blackberry-to-Blackberry instant messaging service.

The Saudi ban was by far the most pressing for RIM, as it had until 6 August to negotiate a suitable arrangement with the Saudi government. Despite RIM stating somewhat pompously that it would not compromise, it emerged the smartphone maker was holding last ditch talks and eventually RIM capitulated, and allowed the Saudi government to monitor its email data.

And since then it has emerged that other countries, including India, Indonesia, Turkey, and Lebanon are also currently negoitating with RIM over the same issue.

Too secure for its own good?

Their concern, in a nutshell, is that the BlackBerry is too secure. These governments say the device could be a security risk becuse its instant messaging, email and SMS use a level of encryption that prevents the security services from monitoring users.

You can see their point, especially in these days of heightened concern about terrorism. But the governments’ security concern raises worries about privacy. Many feel the authorities in these countries are using the anti-terrorism argument as an excuse to monitor day-to-day communications, helping them to enforce strict local laws.

In countries such as Saudi Arabia for example, the BlackBerry is used a lot by young people to easily communicate with each other away from prying eyes.

Yet despite privacy concerns, the monitoring of electronic communications in real time, and retrieving stored electronic data, is regarded as an important weapon in the government arsenal to combat terrorism. It also plays an important role in the detection of serious crime.

So which side is right then? Many would argue that the ability to detect potential terrorist acts should be the overriding priority. Others argue for the right to privacy.

US double standards

Whatever the arguments, it is worth noting that the UAE, India, Saudi Arabia are not actually asking for anything that the United States does not already enjoy.

When the US State Department reacted to the UAE’s potential ban by describing its actions as “disappointing”, some felt concerned about American double standards. After all, the UAE is a sovereign country with its own laws and rights, and it is simply asking for exactly the same regulatory compliance – and with exactly the same principles of judicial and regulatory oversight – that BlackBerry grants the US and other western governments.

I fully expect to see RIM reach some sort of similar accomodation with other governments over the coming months.

Essentially what we are seeing now is RIM learning a lesson that other tech companies have experienced first hand in the past. Earlier this year for example, Google caved in and allowed censorship of Chinese search results, after routing round the censorship. Going back further to 2000, Yahoo was prevented from selling Nazi memorabilia by a French court.

All these companies learned a brutal lesson. Whilst they may be the big fishes in their respective ponds, at the end of the day the ultimate power still lies with the government.

The state controls the airwaves and the Internet, not private industry. Sometimes companies can dance around government regulations or intrusion for a while, but in the end, if they want to carry on playing, they have to eventually toe the party line.