Four big tech coalitions have teamed up to write an open letter to two senators in opposition to a bill that would require smartphone manufacturers to decrypt data for law enforcement on demand. Apple, Google, and Facebook are amongst the companies that these coalitions represent, and the letter expresses their "deep concerns" surrounding the proposed bill.
The letter is addressed to Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, and is signed by Reform Government Surveillance, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition, and the Entertainment Software Association. The full letter, which was posted online to the Reform Government Surveillance blog (via The Verge), can be read below.
Letter to Chairman Burr and Vice-Chairman Feinstein Regarding Encryption
April 19, 2016
The Honorable Richard Burr Chairman Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Vice-Chairman Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Burr and Vice-Chairman Feinstein:
We write to express our deep concerns about well-intentioned but ultimately unworkable policies around encryption that would weaken the very defenses we need to protect us from people who want to cause economic and physical harm. We believe it is critical to the safety of the nation's, and the world's, information technology infrastructure for us all to avoid actions that will create government-mandated security vulnerabilities in our encryption systems.
As member companies whose innovations help to drive the success and growth of the digital economy, we understand the need to protect our users' physical safety and the safety of their most private information. To serve both these interests, we adhere to two basic principles. First, we respond expeditiously to legal process and emergency requests for data from government agencies. Second, we design our systems and devices to include a variety of network- and device-based features, including but not limited to strong encryption. We do these things to protect users' digital security in the face of threats from both criminals and governments.
Any mandatory decryption requirement, such as that included in the discussion draft of the bill that you authored, will to lead to unintended consequences. The effect of such a requirement will force companies to prioritize government access over other considerations, including digital security. As a result, when designing products or services, technology companies could be forced to make decisions that would create opportunities for exploitation by bad actors seeking to harm our customers and whom we all want to stop. The bill would force those providing digital communication and storage to ensure that digital data can be obtained in "intelligible" form by the government, pursuant to a court order. This mandate would mean that when a company or user has decided to use some encryption technologies, those technologies will have to be built to allow some third party to potentially have access. This access could, in turn, be exploited by bad actors.
It is also important to remember that such a technological mandate fails to account for the global nature of today's technology. For example, no accessibility requirement can be limited to U.S. law enforcement; once it is required by the U.S., other governments will surely follow. In addition, the U.S. has no monopoly on these security measures. A law passed by Congress trying to restrict the use of data security measures will not prevent their use. It will only serve to push users to non-U.S. companies, in turn undermining the global competitiveness of the technology industry in the U.S. and resulting in more and more data being stored in other countries.
We support making sure that law enforcement has the legal authorities, resources, and training it needs to solve crime, prevent terrorism, and protect the public. However, those things must be carefully balanced to preserve our customers' security and digital information. We are ready and willing to engage in dialogue about how to strike that balance, but remain concerned about efforts to prioritize one type of security over all others in a way that leads to unintended, negative consequences for the safety of our networks and our customers
Signed, Reform Government Surveillance Computer & Communications Industry Association Internet Infrastructure Coalition (I2C) The Entertainment Software Association
How Go Talk intends to be the BlackBerry of mobile carriers
Identity theft often goes through an unexpected route: conning the carrier. Go Talk Wireless wants to stamp out SIM swap fraud at the source.
It's time for my family to take the plunge on a VPN
A good VPN isn't as complicated as it used to be, but it's still a pretty big step for a "regular" user to take. But it's time to get my family used to it. Their data may depend on it.
PRIV named one of the most secure Android smartphones of 2016
Google's annual Android Security Review names PRIV one of the most secure smartphones of last year. While rather unsurprising to most of us here, there are some areas of the report that BlackBerry's software efforts receive some substantial kudos.
July Android security patch arrives for BlackBerry Priv
The BlackBerry Priv has begun receiving the July 5 Android security patch, which fixes a number of vulnerabilities.