For President Obama, members of Congress, the director of the FBI, and Republican presidential candidates, the subject of encryption has become a popular talking point. In short, it is a crucial debate that needs to be held.
And while the shared goal is to help protect Americans from terrorists who use secure online communication, the truth is that providing law enforcement with a back door through which to access messages and information would make the public less safe.
Encryption is a method of turning messages into code that can be unlocked only by the sender and the recipient. It is used for email, text messages, or accessing your bank account online. As The Washington Post wrote in an explainer about encryption, “If you don’t have the key, the encrypted data will look just like gibberish.”
Law enforcement officials have said this hampers their efforts to track potential terrorists. The government can see who people are communicating with, but is unable to decipher the specific messages. Obama alluded to this during an address to the nation following a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., saying he “will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she is developing a bill that would allow law enforcement to pierce encrypted protections. And FBI Director James Comey last week told Congress that officials still can’t read text messages uncovered following an attack by two gunmen in May in Garland, Texas.
At this week’s GOP debate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich noted: “The people in San Bernardino were communicating with people who the FBI had been watching, but because their phone was encrypted … it was lost. We have to solve the encryption problem.”
This is, indeed, a problem. But it is one that is preferable to the alternative.
The federal government in the past has asked tech giants such as Apple, Google, and Facebook to build in “back door” access that would allow officials to decrypt data under a court order. The drawback is that any back door would inevitably be exploited by terrorists, hackers, and foreign governments. It is folly to expect that an open door would be used only by the U.S. government and only under a court order. When some of the largest retailers in the world cannot secure the credit card information of customers, and when the U.S. Department of Defense cannot prevent hackers from stealing security clearance information, then it is Pollyannaish to expect a breached encryption system to remain secure.
Such a back door might help stop an occasional terrorist who uses an on-the-ground attack, but it would embolden cyberterrorists. As the Chicago Tribune wrote editorially: “If there’s a back door for law enforcement, you can be sure someone else will steal the keys, pilfer information, perhaps even sabotage this country’s power grid or transportation systems.”
Terrorists, undoubtedly, have made good use of encrypted messaging systems, and The New York Times has reported that a tutorial produced by Islamic State provides jihadists with a guide to which messaging apps are the most secure. It should be noted, however, that many of those systems are developed overseas and would not be impacted by changes to U.S. law.
All of these issues must be considered as officials deal with the complex threat posed by terrorism. But in the end, weakening encryption systems would only weaken our security.
