Encryption Debate Must Include Humanitarian Concerns

Encryption Debate Must Include Humanitarian Concerns

Many cybersecurity discussions today, among often ill-informed politicians, revolve around “encryption backdoors.” For one reason or another, many think we should be able to safely and easily circumvent encryption (the codes that keep our information safe) for counterterrorism and law enforcement purposes. In fact, the so-called Five Eyes — the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand — are now pledging to “force” encryption backdoors in private digital systems.

The FBI demanded in 2016 that Apple unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter. Apple refused, but the government eventually figured out their own way in. A short while later, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr introduced a bill to essentially outlaw end-to-end encryption (in which only the two communicating parties can see the messages). Kevin Bankston, director of the Open Technology Institute, called it “the most ludicrous, dangerous, technically illiterate proposal” he'd ever seen.

Read Full Article »
Comment
Show comments Hide Comments

Related Articles