After Paris, Encryption Debate Rages

The debate about “Going Dark” has reignited following the tragic attacks in Paris last week. There have been claims the terrorists used encrypted communications to coordinate their attack and avoid detection by intelligence services– creating what is, essentially, the worst case scenario envisioned by advocates for government access to encrypted communications platforms. Even though no hard evidence has surfaced yet to substantiate those claims, these attacks highlight many of the key issues associated with the problem of going dark.

The two sides of this debate remain firmly entrenched in their respective views. Proponents of strong encryption argue that any attempts to weaken encryption will violate people’s civil liberties, weaken American businesses’ ability to compete overseas, and cause a net decrease in security overall. Proponents of lawful intercept capablities contend that bad actors are exploiting encryption to facilitate criminal and terrorist activities, so the government has a legitimate need for access to encrypted communication. The resumption of the debate comes at a time when ISIS recently endorsed an encrypted communication app, called Telegram, as its app-of-choice for communicating among extremists abroad.

“The Cipher Brief has become the most popular outlet for former intelligence officers; no media outlet is even a close second to The Cipher Brief in terms of the number of articles published by formers.” —Sept. 2018, Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 62

Access all of The Cipher Brief’s national security-focused expert insight by becoming a Cipher Brief Subscriber+ Member.

Subscriber+

Categorized as:Cyber Tech/CyberTagged with:

Related Articles

Search

Close