“The Encryption Debate: Is Privacy Really More Important Than National Security?”

Recently the debate over encryption systems has taken on new interest. To date, law enforcement has relied upon the ability to access communications data through “back doors”, enabling them to essentially by-pass restrictive security measures. The FBI and other administration officials have taken a supportive posture suggesting the Tech industry be required to include “back doors” in their software development.

So what exactly are “back doors”? Essentially, they are software gaps that exist embedded within the software by programmers as part of the development process. The Tech industry is in disagreement with law enforcement’s suggestion to require this manner of access citing concerns over “leaving the door open,” so to speak, for fear of hackers infiltrating their systems and exfiltrating sensitive or private customer data.

Law enforcement has maintained the usefulness of this “back door” access as an important investigative tool for identifying and tracking communications. Terror groups and individuals have demonstrated their proficiency and propensity to utilize multiple telecommunications and social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. for nefarious purposes. In the interest of maintaining transparency, these communications records remain accessible to law enforcement typically through subpoena. The Tech industry continues to refuses to introduce these vulnerabilities into their heavily encrypted environment.

This issue is likely to remain at the forefront of discussion, but it forces citizens and the business community to ask themselves — Would they support the practice of data access by law enforcement to combat terror even though it meant a reduction in the level of privacy Americans have come to demand? We have to ask ourselves at some point, what is the level of our “Willingness to Pay” in order to safeguard our national security?

Government officials have yet to formally weigh in on the matter and Tech industry leaders such as Apple’s Tim Cook have only publicly commented on the need to balance both “privacy and security.” Inevitably, this “balance” will likely leave one side of the conversation discontent over the final decision; however no current projection or time frame has been identified for legislative resolution on the matter.

Recent tragedies and events occurring both internationally and here in the U.S. have illustrated the level of outrage by our citizens who have expressed their expectation to be kept safe and secure here in the homeland. At issue is the potential trade-off that lays in the decision to allow the federal government and law enforcement to gain access to communications data to aid in the early detection and prevention of attacks against our American way of life. Access and analysis by the intelligence community provides the capability to develop potentially valuable investigative intelligence. Interception of this intelligence early on yields the best opportunity for law enforcement to employ mitigation strategies to thwart and event before it occurs.

It is understandable why the public may feel uncomfortable with this increasingly intrusive level of government and law enforcement oversight as a standard of practice. After all, this premise is in direct contradiction to society’s staunch posture to preserve a citizen’s right to privacy .

The decision to require the Tech industry to provide “back door” access to investigators is a tough call for legislative officials to wrestle with. Compelling arguments can be made in support of either position; however, in light of the increasingly more violent national and global threat picture of today, we must consider our options in the hopes we never have to learn the answer.

Additional details on this discussion can be found in the following article link:

http://www.cnet.com/news/tim-cook-pushes-

white-house-to-take-stand-on-encryption/

Submitted by a member of Team plugged-in.

And on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pluggedin1504