Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigat

Deciphering the Debate Over Encryption Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigat

Should the government have the ability to lawfully access encrypted technology and communications? This is the question at the center of a heated public debate, catalyzed when the FBI obtained a court order to compel Apple to assist in unlocking an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists. Strong encryption has existed for decades. For years, motivated individuals have had access to the tools necessary to conceal their activities from law enforcement. And for years, the government has repeatedly tried to limit the use of or obtain access to encrypted data. The most notable example occurred in the 1990s when the development of encrypted communications equipment sparked fears that the government would lose its ability to conduct lawful surveillance. In response, the NSA developed a new encryption chip called the Clipper Chip that would enable encrypted communications, but would also provide the government with a key to access those communications, if necessary. This so-called back door sparked intense debate between the government and the technology community about the benefits and risks of government access to encrypted technology. So what has changed in recent years to renew the debate? Part of the concern is, once again, the rapid expansion of technology. At its core, however, this debate is about the widespread availability of encryption, by default. While encryption has existed for decades, until recently, it was complex, cumbersome, and hard to use. The decision by companies like Apple and the messaging application WhatsApp to provide default encryption means more than a billion people, including some living in countries with repressive governments, have the benefit of easy, reliable encryption. At the same time, however, criminals and terrorists have the same access to secure means of communication, and they will use it as their own mission control center.