Why the Government Shouldn’t have Access to Your Digital Data.
No, I’m not a cybercriminal.
Or a hacker. Or a member of a repressive regime.
No, I’m not trying to induce injustice in the court of law.
I just want to protect the security and integrity of all the world’s data.
This debate comes up repeatedly because of a multitude of reasons, namely involving data which could connect terrorist attacks to their perpetrators and groups. This leads to the rise of court cases which demand evidence that can be found on defendant’s personal electronic devices.
In the United States Constitution, the fourth amendment states that the government has the right to seize individual’s personal information, if it is deemed necessary for public safety. And in many cases, it is clearly so.
Former FBI Director James Comey details the relation between terrorist groups and messaging apps in a statement, “…the current ISIL threat, which involves ISIL operators in Syria recruiting and tasking dozens of troubled Americans to kill people, a process that increasingly takes part through mobile messaging apps that are end-to-end encrypted, communications that may not be intercepted.”
A more specific example comes from the 2015 San Bernardino shooting- law enforcement was able to recover one of the gunmen’s iPhones, of which they believed held information key to discovering the motives behind the horrific attack.
Upon requesting Apple open the password-protected phone, the court was denied.
The court claimed that they had the right to the data, playing the card of the All-Writs Act, which allows all United States courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” This essentially serves to give courts the power to order any means necessary to gain the evidence required to ensure a fair trial.
In general, it has been used in the past where laws did not yet exist- just like as it is now, and how it was designed to be used.
Essentially, “future proofing”.
The most relevant usage of the All-Writs Act was in 1977, where in United States v. New York Telephone Co, the Supreme Court ruled that a court order could require telephone companies to install “pen registers”, which were devices that could track the numbers dialed on a rotary phone.
So, why is it such a huge “debacle” to track the same information on modern phones? Especially if the information is so critical and important?
That’s because of encryption.
In today’s society, it’s almost impossible to manage a sense of productivity, financial records, and even travel without storing sensitive personal information in the digital space. With many of our institutions moving their web of information onto the greater digital space, the question of security is one that has been prevalent for a long time. The amount of privacy concerns have skyrocketed; people are more concerned about their information when they cannot physically see it’s manifestation, and that it can be accessed from somewhere other than their own home and the government location backed by billions of dollars of security.
The current solution is an extremely effective one; encryption. By definition, it is “the process of converting information or data into a code, especially to prevent unauthorized access.”
Because of this, it is quite difficult for courts, or any other entity which attempts to gain access to an encrypted set of data without the knowledge of the “code”, or as it more commonly known, the encryption “key”. An encryption key essentially holds the same purpose a physical key to a vault- it is capable of opening that vault, or in this case, decrypting the information and making it readable.
The current proposed solution is that courts are granted a copy of the key so they can access the secure information if needed. This proposal would make the data significantly less secure. Here’s why.
From a MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory technical report on the topic, “…providing exceptional access to communications would force a U-turn from the best practices now being deployed to make the Internet more secure. These practices include forward secrecy…[and more].”
Forward secrecy, in simplified terms, is when a unique encryption key is generated each time a “secret key”, or password is used. This prevents potential hackers from being decrypt information by exploring previous transactions. This is as if everytime you wanted to open your house, it would trigger the generation of a brand-new lock and key- and after you opened it, the old set would be destroyed and a new one created for the next time. As you could imagine, this creates a much needed improvement in the security.
If forward secrecy is used, past transactions can be “intercepted” or tracked from a log somewhere and the same encryption keys can be used again.
Think of it as being able to use the same key over and over again for a house. But, that key is floating around in the sky everywhere at any given moment and anyone who takes the effort to jump up and grab it has access to your house.
This is the premise behind the fears held by the tech companies and cybersecurity experts. In the New York Times, the senior vice president of software engineering of Apple, Craig Federighi, issued a statement reading, “Proposals that involve giving the keys to customers’ device data to anyone but the customer inject new and dangerous weaknesses into product security…”
Federighi is referring to, precisely, to a lack of forward secrecy.
This concern doesn’t emerge strictly from a desire to maintain corporate privacy either. Paul Kocher, the president of the Rambus Cryptography Research Division, also issued a statement through the New York Times, explaining that “[there are] multiple technological reasons why mandatory government back doors are technically unworkable, and how encryption regulations would be disastrous for computer security…”
Perhaps it was stated best in the Washington Post, by Apple CEO Tim Cook in response to the San Bernardino incident, “…[a backdoor entry] would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.”
In the past, there have been many cases of broken encryption on a large scale- take the over 500 million users which were affected by the breach of Marriott International’s database from 2014 to 2018, from their accusation of Starwood Hotels. The information leaked included names, addresses, credit card numbers and expiration dates, passport numbers, and arrival and departure information. While a passport number isn’t sufficient for a complete identity theft, with some of this other information, it is another piece of information for a potential thief to use.
Although the official cause of the breach has not been revealed, it has been theorized and is widely accepted that it was due to a lack of attention to encryption keys. Often, these keys can be indirectly accessed through the use of a user-created password or passcode.
According to the Washington Post, Marriott International “… ‘could not rule out the possibility’ that the encryption keys were taken by hackers…” According to Johns Hopkins cryptographer Matthew D. Green, “The fact that they can’t rule out that the keys were taken sounds like a problem.” And yes, it really is.
All of this comes from Marriott International’s acquisition of Starwood Hotels; and more importantly, their encrypted database of customer information. By demonstrating little confidence in the security of the encryption keys, it can be concluded that this is the most likely cause of the breach. A lack of seriousness with concern to the protection of encryption keys.
Think of this as leaving a house key under a doormat. This lets you get into the house, even if you have forgotten to take your key. Or, you can even let someone in if you can’t be present. This exposes your house to be opened by anyone.
Doesn’t seem to secure to me.
