Administration Won't Seek Holes In Encryption... But That's Just THIS Administration

from the encryption-as-platform dept

I don't normally recommend Lawfare, seeing as it's generally filled with NSA apologia and has been known to host the complaints of FBI directors who apparently just don't have enough outlets for crypto-related spleen-venting. But Hoover Institute cyber-policy/security scholar Herb Lin makes a few good points about the administration's decision to brush that backdoor dirt off its shoulders.

As pleasantly surprised as we may be by this decision to not screw with encryption to appease FBI director James Comey and other law enforcement officials, this unofficial (and mildly disingenuous) policy may be very short-lived .

In the absence of legislation, executive branch policy can stand only until the next administration. Thus, even if the present admin had said that it would *never* seek a legislative or technical back door to encrypted products or services (according to the NY Times, a statement sought by Tim Cook), it would not necessarily have had a binding effect past January 2017.
In other words, vote like your privacy and security depends on it. Given the current selection of possible candidates, this may prove to be difficult. The only candidates who seem likely to continue this hands-off approach would be Rand Paul and (possibly) Bernie Sanders. And from there, you have to consider who's actually a viable candidate and neither of those fit that description, at least not to the extent that anyone would feel comfortable calling them a frontrunner at this point.

A new president also means new faces in the legislature and a possible majority shift. Time and distance from the Snowden leaks heyday could result in "privacy fatigue," both by current officeholders as well as their constituents. Those who vote the most are also those who tend to view national security and law enforcement agencies as above reproach.

But the upcoming election isn't the only wild card. There's another option which won't result in much visible backdoor activity (legislation, etc.) but could still have the same end result.
The NY Times reported that the intelligence agencies were less vocal in their concerns about encryption, which it posited reflected their greater capabilities to gather information. If so, it suggests the desirability of increasing the technical capabilities of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to deal with encrypted data and communications when encountered.
New capabilities could be put to use without the public's awareness, shrouded in the same secrecy that won't even allow the NSA's budget to be published in unredacted form. Intelligence officials have stopped complaining about encryption and, as Lin points out, it could possibly mean they've found other ways to attack the "problem" -- something that doesn't (directly) involve tech companies or the far more public process of pushing for legislation.

Even without new capabilities, leaked documents have shown the NSA and others have plenty of options when it comes to accessing data and communications, even if they've been encrypted. Targeted software exploits and compromised hardware are only part of the equation. Third parties who hold the ability to decrypt communications they process can be leaned on to acquire more data and communications. And, of course, the NSA's focus continues to be defeating encryption.

The last wild card is the unforeseen. No one actively wishes for one of these events, but when they do happen, all previous lessons learned tend to be forgotten and hasty, overbroad legislation swiftly deployed to patch up perceived national security holes. The abuses uncovered by the Church Committee in the mid-70's were but a footnote to history by the morning of September 12, 2001. Whatever has been learned from the excesses of the Patriot Act will fade quickly should another terrorist attack occur. Whether or not it involves encrypted communications, encryption will be the first thing sacrificed to make Americans "safer..." just in case.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: backdoors, encryption, fbi, going dark, james comey, politics


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:12pm

    Let's hope Sanders wins then, because Clinton will be worse than Obama on this issue. I guarantee it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mark Wing, 14 Oct 2015 @ 3:13pm

    Agreed that Hillary will have no problem throwing privacy under the bus for whatever political gain she perceives. Not that there's much left of our privacy to sacrifice.

    I doubt she will give her buddies in big entertainment the illegal encryption world of Pakistan they would like to see here, but she will undermine our privacy at every turn because she takes so much of their money, and she doesn't understand technology.

    Please, Santa, if you're listening, give us Bernie for Christmas.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 3:27pm

    As I've been saying to my family: the people trying to get into the presidential candidate lineup sounds like a bad joke, something you'd read on the onion or the like; an arrogant as hell billionaire, a former First Lady, a member of the bush family and the kardashians walk into the White House.....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      GEMont, 15 Oct 2015 @ 11:45pm

      Re:

      I think the ringer - the President Select - has yet to be introduced, and the current crazy-clown-candidate parade is just corporate america's way to make sure that everyone will vote for the ringer, as "the only sane choice", after a few months of Hillary, Bush, Trump and the rest of the wack jobs, proving repeatedly that they're not fit to mow the lawn let alone run a nation.

      I'm pretty sure the new POTUS-2B Ringer will be another fake Democrat, but a Female this time, possibly even black (to doubly prove she is not a republican), from a very wealthy family, who has a good "track record" (has not been caught), in a lower political office.

      Sound like anyone you know?

      Time will tell. :)

      ---

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 19 Oct 2015 @ 2:32am

      Re:

      ...an arrogant as hell billionaire, a former First Lady, a member of the bush family and the kardashians walk into the White House...

      "If I become president I'll tell all the illegal immigrants, 'You're fired!'," said the billionaire.

      "If I become president I'll tell all the corporations they can do what they like," said the former First Lady.

      "If I become president I'll tell all the military and security contractors they can do what they like," said the Bush family member.

      "Well if I become president," said one of the Kardashians, "I'll tell all the media outlets they can make a deal with us to stream our whole administration if they like."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Joe, 15 Oct 2015 @ 10:54am

    Tim,

    I'm disappointed in your assertion that Bernie Sanders isn't a viable candidate. He has the largest donor base of any candidate, continuing to fill stadiums 15k-25k people at a time. Stop listening to mainstream media. We all know they are part of the establishment in charge of maintaining the status quo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Sponsored Promotion
Public Money, Public Code - Sign The Open Letter at publiccode.eu
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.