Tag: Zimmermann

Ethics and the Zimmermann Telegram

On October 1, 2018

When Reverend Montgomery and Nigel de Gray broke part of the Zimmermann telegram and realized that German U-boats were about to unleash unrestricted warfare on civilian ships, they handed the telegram to Admiral Hall expecting him to pass it on the the Americans. Instead, Hall decided to keep the telegram secret and chose not to warn the Americans. As a result, when the Germans launched their attack, two ships were sunk, which could have been prevented had Hall sent the telegram. In addition, since the message had been completely deciphered at this time, Hall’s excuse of not wanting to send an incomplete message was no longer valid, and he did it for the sole reason of not wanting the Germans to know that their code was broken.

To consider whether this action was ethical or not, we can only consider the hypothetical outcome of the Germans finding out about the broken code and making their codes more secure. The benefit of this is that the two ships wouldn’t have been sunk. However, if the Germans had found a revolutionary encryption as a result of the broken code, it could potentially have cost many more lives while the Allies tried to decrypt messages. If the Germans had invented the Enigma machine in the first world war instead of the second, the Allies might not have broken the code in time to prevent Germany from winning, though the Enigma machine would most likely not have been as effective during WWII. In the case of all hypotheticals, however, it’s impossible to tell what could have happened and compare the costs and benefits to what did happen based on severity of consequences and probability of occurrence. We can only think about what might have happened with either relief or hope.

The Truth Behind the Zimmerman Telegram

By tsais

On September 29, 2015

In Student Posts

In 1917, during the height of World War I, the British intercepted a German telegram (the Zimmermann Telegram) that was meant for the Mexican government. The Germans called for unrestricted submarine warfare, which violated a previous agreement with the United States, and proposed that if Mexico invaded the United States, Mexico would receive United States territory at the end of the war.

In high school history classes, we are told that as soon the British caught word of this duplicitous German telegram, the United States’ government was immediately notified. However, as Singh explains in the third chapter of The Code Book, the British initially withheld the information, at the potential cost of American lives due to unrestricted submarine warfare, in order to protect the cryptographic advancements of the British. At first, I thought that the actions of the British were wrong. The lives of innocent people were on the line. Yet, I realize that from a broader perspective, the move to protect British cryptographic intelligence was ethical and necessary, because in the end, it led to the demise of the Germans and to the end of the war.

If the British had immediately informed the American government of the Zimmermann Telegram, chances are the United States would have publicly condemned Germany for its actions. The success of the British codebreakers would have become known, and the Germans would have realized that their ciphers would need improving. Had the Germans known this, they could have created a better, more impenetrable cipher, and the Allies would have been back at square one. Since the Germans were unaware that their cipher had been broken (they believed that the Mexican government had handed over the telegram to the United States), the Allies had an upper hand, because they now knew the German code.

Overall, the British decision was ethical, because in the grand scheme of the war, more lives were saved by defeating the Germans than lives that would have been lost from unrestricted submarine warfare. By protecting British cryptographic intelligence, Germany was blindsided and fell behind in their cryptographic advancements. Because of this, Germany lost yet another advantage in the war.

Privacy Rules

By stubblj

On November 4, 2014

In Student Posts

The government should not be given free reign to use electronic surveillance for “national security” when compromising the privacy of citizens. I understand that the government would compromise privacy in the best interests of the state; however, the efficiency of the system for trying to find criminals using electronic surveillance is lacking. Little Brother gives us an example at the inefficiencies of searching for criminals by brute force. If they want to find criminals who are attempting to use security systems like Zimmermann’s “Pretty Good Privacy” (PGP), they need to know who and where to survey because only by making smart and educated decisions on who to check based on previous records will the government have a good chance at finding these criminals/terrorists.

Instead of prosecuting Zimmermann, the government should have used the benefits of PGP. By informing all normal, law-abiding citizens of PGP, they could have shown everyone how to use this security for their own electronic safety. If everybody had PGP to prevent others from reading their information, not only would the government have trouble seeing it, but also would internet criminals trying to steal their credit card/personal information. Some might think giving everyone the ability the secure their information would give criminals an easy way to avoid being caught by the government. However, even if the government didn’t allow this type of security and heavily surveyed electronic usage, criminals and terrorists would still find new ways to stay under the radar and will still be able to commit crimes. The heavy electronic surveillance and a strict ban on types of security such as PGP would only give the criminals the ability to stay private. This is similar to the debate on the Second Amendment on the right to bear arms. Making guns and other arms illegal only take them away from law-abiding citizens while the criminals still get them illegally.

Allowing privacy for the individuals helps the average citizen because their basic rights are maintained while helping them keep private from hackers and criminals. Compromising this basic right only gives the criminals the ability to work without being under the governmental surveillance. To prevent criminal acts or terrorist attacks, other measures should be made instead of taking away the people’s privacy.

Diego Torres Silvestre, 2005. Wikimedia, Creative commons.