The Senate Attack On Encryption
If you’d asked me a few days ago to produce a list of my ten most despised senators, it would’ve included the likes of Richard Burr, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Thom Tillis, Marsha Blackburn, Tom Cotton, and Ted Cruz (’ll freely acknowledge the pattern here: they’re all members of the same group, senators who make bad faith arguments to defend the status quo).
Yesterday, three of them teamed up to give me yet another reason to hate them, and this time, it wasn’t over their support for racist, homophobic, xenophobic policies, but rather a technology issue.
A little bit of important context: the FBI and Apple got into a big showdown several years ago. The FBI asked Apple to unlock an iPhone that had belonged to the San Bernardino mass shooter, and Apple refused. They said no because iPhones use such a strong form of encryption that the only way technically possible for Apple to have unlocked it would have required them to write an altered version of iOS that they could put on this phone to bypass the passcode. Because that altered version of iOS could then be installed on any iPhone, it would have effectively created a backdoor into EVERY iPhone (Apple CEO Tim Cook described this hypothetical, altered version of iOS as “the software equivalent of cancer”). Apple was right to refuse the FBI’s request to create that altered version of iOS, and after several months, the FBI backed down.
Marsha Blackburn, Tom Cotton, and Lindsey Graham proposed legislation that would outlaw what’s know as “end-to-end” encryption. End-to-end encryption is used by Apple to encrypt iMessages, FaceTime calls, and other important data, but it’s also used by just about every other company and industry on planet earth. It’s used to protect sensitive financial information, patient health records, government documents; basically, everything that needs to stay truly private and secure is protected by the type of encryption these senators are seeking to outlaw. The reason for that is because data that is end-to-end encrypted can only be accessed by the individuals on either end of a line of communication, and no companies or governments have backdoors to access your information. Not everything needs that strong level of encryption, but a lot of things do. These senators want to take away your ability to truly protect your digital data and keep your information and communications private. If an altered version of iOS is the software equivalent of cancer, banning end-to-end encryption is the digital equivalent of demanding that people leave their front doors ajar 24/7.
Two talking points in particular come up every time this conversation gets started, and it’s important to address them head on. One of those issues is child pornography. Nobody is arguing that we shouldn’t prosecute people who abuse children; that isn’t what this is about. The other issue I’d terrorism. They say that by allowing people to encrypt their data in a way that is completely secure, you’re enabling terrorists a safe haven to plot attacks against America. Frankly, these are both tired tropes. They’re bad faith arguments peddled by people who favor less privacy and more invasive government surveillance capabilities, because while “we need to do this to stop terrorists and child abusers” sounds great on its face and will quickly garner public support, it doesn’t do as well when you explain to people what the real trade off is and how it significantly weakens their own privacy and safety. It’s unreasonable and unfair to suggest that because a small number of criminals could find ways to use end-to-end encryption to facilitate illegal activities, that the rest of us shouldn’t have access to it as a means to protect our most sensitive data from bad actors and prying government eyes. We will all be subject to a lot more abuse and attacks if we fling open the gates that protect our most sensitive data.
Also of note: the three senators pushing this legislation are all Republicans, but if there’s a political angle here, I’m missing it. I don’t see how this is a Republican issue at all; conservatives are usually the ones fighting for more restricted government, not a complete shredding of civil liberty. The only thing I can think is that maybe the republicans think this will help them with their base by showing that they’re trying to expand the capabilities of police to prosecute crime. As I mentioned before, that doesn’t really add up because if we allow end-to-end encryption to be allowed, the detrimental effects to law abiding citizens would far outweigh any positive impact on law enforcement’s ability to stop crime.
If this bill becomes law, it will be much worse than the Patriot Act. We’ll find ourselves a lot like the Chinese, living in a surveillance state where the government has unchecked ability to spy on its citizens. Contact your representatives and voice your opposition to this proposal.