Why does making the switch seem so difficult?

Making the switch to defending the use and development of strong encryption is the motto of a global campaign driven by many entities. Encryption protects all: not only in private communications but in all digital operations, including the government. So why defend it? And why is it so hard to understand it as an ally – not a threat – to the rule of law?

A part affects all

As in other discussions, it is totally reasonable, even desirable, to fight abuses and crimes. It is how this happens and the cost-effectiveness of proposals to address technology issues that needs better-targeted attention. Insights regarding encryption and criminal investigations are the focus of this research. One of them involves an apparent exceptionality in e2e encryption standards to enable, in specific cases, its overcome. Some points, however, remain open in proposals like this.

First, it is not possible to state that investigating crimes directly means combating them, however desirable. The very perception that the criminalization of behaviors inhibits them has been questioned for a long time by the penal doctrine. The most obvious example is murder, which from immemorial (or biblical, if you prefer) time has been reprehensible but continues to happen. In addition to the discussions of criminal and criminal procedural theories, a country that leaves police vehicles without fuel or does not even guarantee the protection of police officers’ lives cannot attribute impunity to a specific technology.

Furthermore, if surpassing encryption could solve crimes and make society more secure, which is not proven, it would not be exceptional. In other words, inserting mechanisms to weaken encryption deteriorate the security of the entire system. Therefore, of everyone who uses it. A systemic vulnerability can be exploited by malicious agents, going beyond institutional boundaries and compromising the encryption algorithm. In this sense, it would violate social security, and our rights to confidential, authentic, available, and reliable information, because of a much smaller portion of people. As in other cases, the account does not close.

How and why making the switch?

Different entities worldwide mobilize for the importance of not only maintaining but also promoting strong encryption. It is an obvious sign of its importance. Making the switch, in this sense, means:

• Understand the importance of cryptography for the entire society;
• Abandon ideas that create alternatives/exceptions/relativizations, impose bans or make strong cryptography unfeasible;
• Encourage the adoption of high encryption standards by different actors and across various industries.

The reasons include guarantees and rights without which a society cannot sustain itself: freedom of expression and thought, protection of personal data and privacy, security, and the presumption of innocence. Everything is at stake if there is a weakening of the technological standards that have become part of our lives in the most diverse spheres. It is necessary to think about technology and society walking together and recognize the mutual connections. Especially for certain groups, such as political dissidents and opponents, activists and journalists, or those who guarantee civil society’s scrutiny of public and private actions, encryption can be the literal layer between life and death. Because of that, IRIS promotes at the Global Encryption Day, the webinar: ‘The Importance of Cryptography for Activists and Civil Society.’ 

It is possible to make the switch

In this context, making the switch seems so hard because it touches on values, beliefs, and perceptions that we only recently deal with as a society. There are issues to be addressed, but they cannot jeopardize what we have already achieved in the face of technological advances and the new proportions that have taken on our lives. Questioning, then, the level of reasonableness, methodological accuracy of supposed evidence, and effectively analyzing costs and benefits (including collective) are steps for the commitment to take care of society as a whole.

Making the switch does not mean, in the end, being inert. The proposal is to change the approach, to look differently at the problems and, therefore, the solutions. There are already proposals that seek more reasonably balance institutional needs and the integral preservation of encryption. We need to dedicate ourselves to them to follow more viable and safer paths.