This is a response to this post.
Is encryption a fundamental right? Should US citizens have access to technology capable of completely locking out law enforcement, to the point where government officials are asking tech companies to build back-doors to bypass encryption and security measures? I certainly believe so, albeit to an extent.
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In other words, so long as there is no warrant we as citizens have a right to privacy and can take measures to protect that privacy. Adding encryption to a device is similar to adding locks to your doors or placing valuable physical documents in a safe. Yes these measures may frustrate law enforcement in the fact that they can’t complete their job at a faster pace, but they also frustrate the bad guys who may have more malicious intents than throwing you in jail for a few nights. Would the same people who say they “have nothing to hide” and therefore argue that encryption methods should not be necessary/be easily bypassed in the name of national security also advocate leaving their doors unlocked or leaving their valuable documents out on the living room coffee table? Hopefully not. As we mentioned in the project, these people with supposedly no secrets probably do not realize just how pervasive encryption really is to modern society as well as how powerful the bad guys can be if they get your sensitive information.
The encryption/data privacy issue is one that is very important to me after having worked with the information security team at my last internship as well as coming from a family with a military/government background. I’ve been able to see both sides of the argument and really has shaped my views about government, technology, and human rights. I believe that technology that has not caused any serious harm should not be banned because it is not fully understood (or, perhaps in our government’s case, because their agents aren’t smart enough to actually crack the encryption or find other creative solutions for gaining intel besides spying on US citizens). It is our duty as informed voters to learn all we can about emerging technologies in order to keep up with scientific and technological innovation, which will ultimately bring even more issues and debates to light. It is also our duty to support those candidates and officials who do the same as opposed to spreading rhetoric of fear and control from “the man.”
The encryption debate will ultimately be resolved by the balance that we as a society strike between national security and privacy. The way I see it, the balance will continue to shift towards national security so long as people continue to be controlled by fear and terror. I’m not sure what good I can do on my own, but I will still fight to make sure people are educated about technology, their rights to privacy, and of the dangerous precedents that could be set by allowing the government to intentionally weaken digital security.
codersongblog 