Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - Encryption Policy Must Protect Privacy

News Article

By The Editorial Board

Congressman Ted Lieu says he has caught a lot of flak, in the form of "nasty" comments on social media, from people who think he's siding with the bad guys in the Crypto Wars.

Did you think the argument over the limits of electronic encryption had died down after the FBI found a way to unlock the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists without forcing Apple to help?

It hasn't died down at all. It's an eternal issue, more vexing in the era of digital communication and global terrorism. If anything, after the Apple vs. FBI legal standoff the need is greater than ever for lawmakers to cut through the complexities and emotion and set useful policies for the future.

That's why Californians should be encouraging the efforts of lawmakers like Lieu, the self-described "recovering computer-science major" who is in the thick of legislative efforts to protect both our technological and physical security.

Lieu understands that prizing digital privacy doesn't put you on the side of the evildoers -- in fact, breaking down encryption would make it easier for terrorists and criminals to attack our businesses and national defense.

He believes people who get angry with him on Twitter and Facebook fail to acknowledge the details at work here.

It may be easier for those without an easy understanding of the technology involved (hey, welcome to the club!) to grasp the side of the issue represented by the FBI, which won an initial court order that Apple must defeat the security system on a phone left behind by Syed Farook.

That side has the support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who backs legislation to force tech companies to comply with court orders sought by law enforcement, and California Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, whose bill would require all smart phones in the state to have built-in "back doors" so the government can peek at the contents.

Some will ask: Why wouldn't we want to make it easier for the police and national security forces to look at the contents of terrorists' phones? Why would anyone want to protect the privacy rights of a dead terrorist?

Speaking with editorial board members, Lieu, D-Torrance, explained with a simple analogy:

Having a device to unlock a terrorist's phone is like having the key to unlock a criminal's door. Except that when you're dealing with smart phones, it's really like having a key that unlocks every door on the block. If that falls into the wrong hands, what looked like a great tool for the cops becomes a great tool for the crooks.

The FBI has yet to cite a case where looking inside a phone would have stopped a terrorist attack. Terrorists may be madmen, but they aren't dummies; they use disposable phones.

Lieu has co-authored the Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications (ENCRYPT) Act of 2016, which would head off a state-by-state patchwork of laws weakening encryption. Lieu also is a leader of a push to create a 9/11-style commission of experts and advocates in the fields of technology, law enforcement, economics, privacy rights and others to sort out digital privacy and national security issues.

This isn't the side of the bad guys. This is the right side of an old American issue.

As Lieu correctly said, making some criminal investigations easier isn't worth trading our national and economic security.

Source