Written By KEVIN J. O’BRIEN Published: December 28, 2009 By The New York Times A Report by Michael Abdullah

Actors: Karsten Nohl – German Computer Engineer, Security Expert: Cracked GSM Code and published it. GSM Association-Industry group in London responsible for the original GSM algorithm. 80% of Cell Phone Users- who could be affected by potential hacking of their encrypted messages, and have personal or professional privacy issues. Situation: A German security expert in Berlin recently broke the GSM encryption code. Not only did he break the code, he then published it on the internet. The code book he published could possibly allow hackers to decrypt cell phone messages and convert steal private information. Currently GSM is used in 80% of cell phones.

Ethical Dilemma: In cracking the GSM code, Karstern broke no law of the country he was in. He has never used the information to listen to a call, nor does he himself distribute the code book publicly. He says his concern was for security reasons, to show a fault in the security of the GSM algorithm. However, his actions have made it possible for anyone who gets the code book to potentially decrypt and listen a cell phone call. Is it ethically acceptable, to act inside of the law, while creating a venue for malicious users to act outside of the law?

Analysis of the Means: However, we must not judge whether an act is ethical by the ends alone. The means by which he went about this process of decoding and publishing his findings. He began by brute force algorithms to decode and compile a record of all of the possible codes, forming a complete copy of the GSM code book. This in and of itself may not be considered unethical, by the fact that a mans private endeavors especially in a field of expertise may delve into the weaknesses of a system for ethical reasons. The problem arises when he chose to publish the information publicly, instead of dealing with the GSM association privately on the matter allowing them time to upgrade and prepare their algorithm for added security. Analysis of the Ends: The end result if a complex ethical issue. While he has created a venue for malicious users to listen in to mobile phone calls, which by no means is ethically praiseworthy, he has also presented a glaring issue with the most popular cell phone encryption code. While some may demonize this act, there is some benefit to this. By making it public he prevented future hackers from breaking the code and privately stealing calls, now that this is a public issue, officials can take measures to update and improve the existing algorithms, and prepare for malicious users who might try to listen in on calls. Therefore, the ends seem to denote that there is likely more good to come of this than evil.

Conclusion: In conclusion, I believe that Mr. Nohl’s motivation may have been for increased security for mobile phone users. However, he went about accomplishing this goal in an unethical way. Publicly publishing this code book, is the digital equivalent of legitimately selling a gun to a man you know is going to use it to rob a gas station. Mr. Nohl is an intelligent man and should know this code book can and will be used to steal and listen to innocent people’s conversations. In fact this is the reason he published it publically, to use this fear as pressure to force the officials of cell phone companies to act. While there needs to be more advanced security implemented in cell phones, his act remains selfish and unethical.