from the breaking-something-doesn't-just-break-it-for-the-'bad-guys' dept
While FBI director James Comey discusses all the inevitable horrors encrypted phones are poised to wreak on the nation's youth, those in the encryption business are pointing out how encrypted phones make things safer for our nation's military.
Vic Hyder and Mike Janke, two former Navy SEALs with the company Silent Circle, say that the FBI’s plan to block phone makers and service providers from offering phone encryption would make it significantly more difficult for deployed people to communicate back home and even for members of the intelligence community to communicate with sources…Obviously, Janke and Hyder have a horse in this race. But it's not just their business that may be hurt by new laws aimed at destroying Apple and Google's default encryption.
While they acknowledge that their opposition is borne out of self-interest, they say that blocking encryption would also hurt their customers, which includes a lot of men and women on the front lines. “If Director Comey’s efforts actually resulted in legislative change to halt the sale of encryption or encryption services, he would only be hurting the American people, businesses, government entities who Silent Circle’s encrypted communication services are currently protecting,” Janke told Defense One.Silent Circle's Blackphone already has customers in the military and its promise of encrypted communications has seen it put into service by other governments around the world. Philip Zimmerman, the creator of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) and a Silent Circle co-founder, says he had the FBI inquire about pricing last August, well before Apple (and Google, shortly thereafter) somehow turned encryption into the playground of pedophiles, terrorists and other heinous criminals.
Sure, a lot of what Silent Circle's principal members are saying here isn't more than a step or two away from a direct sales pitch, but they do offer some insight that those outside of the New Crypto War don't have (as well as those outside the inner circle of the military). Zimmerman has already weathered one of those, thanks to the release of PGP. Now, they're pointing out what Comey and others haven't considered: that neutering encryption can harm intelligence gathering and operations.
The company says that legislation making encryption unavailable to the public could also hurt intelligence collection. The intelligence community today is a great deal larger and more diverse than it was 50 years ago. Potential sources of information in places like northern Iraq or China may be much less likely to provide actionable intel if they can’t communicate over a secure medium with U.S. agents, contractors, journalists or intermediaries. Getting good sources to talk becomes more difficult if secure communication is the sole right of a small handful of people.Unfortunately, some of the statements offered in defense of encrypted communications by Silent Circle's founders tend to suggest that its products may remain in the hands of a small group of people. Hyder rattles off a list of governments currently using Silent Circle's products, including Mexico, Brazil, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Singapore and Germany. (Not all of which are noted for their civil liberty protections and/or lack of domestic surveillance.) The other founders talk about offering pricing to the FBI and military intelligence. To Comey and like-minded individuals, encryption in the hands of government is perfectly fine. It's when it's offered to the general public that it becomes a problem. (Case in point: Washington DC police encrypt their radio communications while the department's chief calls Apple and Google's encryption a tool for "pedophiles and criminals.")
Silent Circle wants to make this for the masses, but if the legislative landscape shifts now that midterm elections are over, it could mean that the government will only allow encrypted communications if it can pick and choose who gets to enjoy this "privilege."
The simple fact is that encryption makes everyone's communications safer. That criminals are (as they always have been) still a subset of the group "everyone" simply isn't reason enough to make the option unavailable to anyone or compromise its security for the convenience of law enforcement.