The BlackBerry Ban continues to be a hot issue with governments around the world. Some, like the United States, believe privacy rights should be upheld or implemented while others, like the UAE, want to violate those human rights. ABC News is calling the issue the BlackBerry Butterfly Effect:

Call it the “BlackBerry Butterfly Effect”: In this era of a globally interconnected world, the clash between technology, user privacy, and national security anywhere in the world eventually affects us all. Once a company like RIM concedes to one government’s demands for surveillance capabilities that do not properly protect privacy rights, other governments will demand equivalence.

Furthermore, ABC News makes three great, general points:

1. First, companies need to be more transparent about the deals they cut with governments. It is folly to believe that service providers consistently take a hard line when it comes to bucking a government request for surveillance. However, when the extent of that cooperation is kept secret, serious concerns arise: Users must be able to adequately assess the risks associated with the use of a particular communications
2. Second, companies, advocates, and policymakers need to resist the imposition of broad and ill-defined technological design mandates on communications services and products. Even the U.S. imposes certain requirements on certain service providers, but design mandates must be narrowly crafted, must recognize and protect the public value of secure communications, and, tying back to the first point, must be transparent.
3. And third, companies, advocates, and policymakers should insist on appropriate legal process for any governmental access to users’ communications; in other words, no snooping without a just cause. And companies making deals with governments to gain market access should be thinking about advancing user privacy rights and the rule of law as much as possible.

I could not have said it better myself. RIM really needs to weigh the options here and choose between a market, the privacy of its subscribers or at least a compromise that wouldn’t violate privacy rights (which might not be possible). Personally, I don’t think they should give in to anyone’s demands for direct access especially if they don’t even have direct access. What do you all think?

via ABC News