Is an encrypted smart phone a secure device – or threat to nation's safety?

Two representatives introduced a bill Wednesday to stop states from creating a patchwork of bans on encrypted devices, a sign that the House of Representatives is interested in legislation that protects consumer privacy. 

|
Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/File
FBI Director James Comey testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy" July 8, 2015. Two representatives introduced a bill Wednesday to stop the states from creating bans on fully encrypted devices.

When Apple releases its iPhone 2000z at some unknown future date, consumers will not need to worry if they are buying it in New York or New Jersey, if a bill introduced in the House of Representatives on Wednesday passes.

Data encryption is among the biggest debates on privacy and cybersecurity, but the new bill signals that Congress is viewing the issue as a conflict between national security and individual rights, Lance Whitney reported for CNET.

The bill, the Encrypt Act of 2016, responds to action in New York and California, where the states are creating requirements for tech companies to leave a so-called "back door" to allow the government to hack into fully encrypted devices, Dustin Volz reported for Reuters. 

"We need to keep free market and trade between the several states robust, not promote a false sense of security and require things like backdoors and golden keys that can be exploited by hackers," said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R) of Texas, who introduced the bill, in a press release. 

Apple, Android, and other companies began fully encrypting smart phones and other devices in 2014, partly to shake the public's suspicion that they would sell consumer data to the US government when asked. Currently, even the smart phone's creators cannot access its data once the consumer encrypts it. 

"Having 50 states with 50 different encryption back doors standards or bans is a recipe for disaster for American privacy and competitiveness," Rep. Ted Lieu (D) of California, who also introduced the bill, told CNET. 

Although he generally advocates for the right of states to handle their own problems internally, Mr. Farenthold has said this a security issue requiring a unified, national approach. 

Although it does not relate directly to the bill they introduced Wednesday, both Farenthold and Lieu are advocates of privacy in the tech world. They oppose the idea of the government requiring any so-called "back doors" to encrypted devices on the grounds that such openings could easily be exploited by hackers.

The bill does not end the debate on data encryption and its role in cybersecurity and counter-terrorism efforts, but it shows a possible divide between a pro-privacy House of Representatives and a more security-conscious Senate.

"Put in new standards so we can deal with the encryption where terrorists are hiding their communications from our surveillance, even under court order," Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois said on the Senate floor, The Christian Science Monitor reported. 

Governments, not only in the United States but also in Europe, have increased pressure on tech companies in recent months to help stop Islamic State terrorists. The issue of encryption is particularly potent, as FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Tuesday that encryption was stopping his investigators from accessing a cell phone from one of the San Bernadino shooters, Reuters reported. 

"In the last 10 days, we’ve had almost 500 people killed as a direct result of terrorism. At some point, this administration has to have a commitment to defeat terrorism, and it’s going to start with better intelligence, as we have seen from the Paris attacks," said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R) of North Carolina, according to The Christian Science Monitor. "Encryption has been a problem, will continue to be a problem, and that problem will grow."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Is an encrypted smart phone a secure device – or threat to nation's safety?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0210/Is-an-encrypted-smart-phone-a-secure-device-or-threat-to-nation-s-safety
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe