Backdoors and Regulations

Code and regulation is a detrimental part in not only social platforms, but also in all digital platform, in that some degree of sensitive, private information are included in all medium of socialization. In a world where personal information is shared and exposed over Internet, a structure that provides code and regulation is important to protect ourselves, and further control what can be disclosed even to those that are allowed to view your personal information. However, need for code and regulation is rising to even for those who are providing the service, not only for the users utilizing the medium.

The news article regards the recently discovered backdoor in the mobile products manufactured by Shanghai Adups Technology Company. To those who do not know what backdoors are, they are vulnerabilities that allow unauthorized access to the data within. For this specific backdoor, the call logs, text messages, and other personal data are compiled and sent to the company. While there are news of backdoors now and then within various medium, this specific backdoor, mainly targeting disposable(prepaid phone, etc) ,has been in the center of harsh criticism, due to the fact that the backdoor itself was the intention of the software. While the company made clear that such software was distributed to Huawei and ZTE by mistake, the explanation included that the software was initially built according to the request of an “unidentified Chinese manufacturer” and was to provide customer support. Adups Company claims that the information is now completely destroyed and will not be utilized.

Code and regulation is conventionally implemented for the users, to provide a structure in which they can control where their information is allowed to flow to. As an aforementioned purpose of this structure, they are to protect the users’s information. However, such purpose accounts on the fact that the service provider itself is absolutely invulnerable and clear in the method which they use to suffice the regulation. This specific instance regarding the “intentional” vulnerability in the software shows that these regulating codes are lacking “their” regulation to prevent abuse of these self-proclaimed code and regulation.

While not explicitly stated, the news article raises few questions regarding the intention of the software. Adups Company asserts that the software was for initial an “unidentified Chinese manufacturer,” and the author of the article argues the possibility that this might have been due to the restrictive Chinese government. However, Lily Lim, a lawyer representing Adups, states that Adups was not affiliated with the Chinese government. Such contradicting assertions further indicates the need for transparent process in software creation and the resulting components, as well as another “code and regulation” to restrict both unintentional and intentional abuse of the system.

Work Cited:

Apuzzo, Matt, and Michael S. Schmidt. “Secret Back Door in Some U.S. Phones Sent Data to China, Analysts Say.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2016. Web. 08 Dec. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/china-phones-software-security.html?_r>.

Lessig, Lawrence. “Chapter 1.” Code: Version 2.0. Place of Publication Not Identified: SoHo, 2010. N. pag. Print.