In 1997, I testified before Congress supporting the Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act, which would have codified the already Fourth Amendment-guaranteed freedom to use strong encryption. I said then that “I worry about an America in which the FBI director lies to Congress and has to be corrected by his own inspector general. These guys want to assign me my digital signature and keep my key on file with them or someone they designate?”
That worry has not dissipated with time. Following the shooting at a Navy training base in Pensacola, Florida, Attorney General William Barr pressured Apple and other technology firms to create backdoors for authorities to access devices.
Giving the government the capability to unlock your iPhone is like letting the government put a camera in every room of your house with a promise not to turn it on unless you’ve been bad. And of course, if the government or companies can access backdoors, foreign-backed hackers and other bad actors would figure out how to exploit intentionally inserted vulnerabilities as well. A backdoor into one device is a backdoor into all devices.
The government already has more than adequate opportunities to spy on taxpayers, take their money, and otherwise ruin their lives. Giving the federal government the ability to access every electronic device in the United States didn’t make sense in 1997, and it doesn’t make sense now.
Anti-encryption advocates claim that it’s a tool to shelter criminals. But it’s important to recognize that encryption is not just a way to hide things. U.S. businesses of all stripes need encryption to protect themselves from attacks and theft. Without encryption, countries or malicious competitors could break into businesses’ systems to access trade secrets, intellectual property, and other vital information. Healthy competition is a boon for our economy, but the game could get dirty if companies can’t effectively protect their assets.
Hackers with nation-states backing them regularly go after retailers and financial institutions to steal customers’ data. In Target’s massive data breach, hackers stole customers’ encrypted bank PINs, but they didn’t have the key, meaning they couldn’t decrypt the data. Imagine if this had happened in a world with encryption backdoors. Millions of Americans’ bank accounts would have been compromised.
More sophisticated encryption protects Americans even further. For example, Apple Pay allows individuals to make purchases with just their phones, which is more secure than paying with a traditional plastic credit card because both Apple and the retailer aren’t able to store the card number on the device or their servers. With Apple Pay, a bank or card issuer sends Apple an encrypted device account number, or token, for the card. This token is useless to make purchases without the device in hand and thereby useless to hackers.
This issue boils down to ensuring our property rights, privacy, and security. Quite frankly, encryption is the last bit of protection individuals have against a totalitarian state. Countries with troubling civil rights track records consistently attack citizens’ use of encryption — just look at Russia’s (failed) attempts to ban the encrypted messaging app Telegram.
Government officials are urged to use hypersecure devices to ensure they will not be hacked — and for good reason. It’s certainly interesting that at the same time, some government officials are calling to limit encryption on regular Americans’ phones.
I sympathize with authorities’ efforts to keep us safe, but I must point out that encryption is not the bad guy here. Compelling companies to weaken their devices or services intentionally would only put Americans at risk without providing the benefits that anti-encryption advocates have promised.
The bottom line is that encryption secures our critical infrastructure, promotes innovation, and protects both American citizens and businesses from cyberthreats or government overreach. The government shouldn’t meddle with that.
Grover G. Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform.
