Home > Identity Theft > Encryption Is Not the Enemy: The True Cost of Government ‘Back Doors’

Comments 0 Comments

The aftermath of any major terrorist attack such as the recent tragedy in Paris appears to predictably include a call for new privacy-invasive policies that restrict freedom. After the attacks on 9/11, it was the passing of the USA PATRIOT Act; after the 2014 attack on Parliament Hill, it was the passing of Bill C-51. Throughout history, governments have always been a double-edged sword: We give them a monopoly on the use of force to protect us against the dystopian elements in our society, but in our constitutions, we have placed strong limits on the use of this force.

We are now enjoying a bonanza in innovation in the area of information technologies. The associated prosperity has improved the lives of millions, and will continue to do so. But the entire infrastructure of this new prosperity boom is based on security, specifically strong encryption. Modern-day Bonnie & Clydes don’t rob banks any longer, they rob bank accounts.

The target is now the use of strong encryption. Before the Paris attacks, intelligence agencies and pro-surveillance politicians were already resisting the widespread adoption of encryption. A number of notable companies nonetheless enabled encryption by default to protect the data on mobile devices such as cellphones and tablets. After Paris, this resistance has grown into an uproar, calling for regulations restricting the use of encryption, and the introduction of mandatory back doors into encrypted communications – all in the name of protecting us from terrorism.

In theory, the proposed back doors would give law enforcement the ability to access encrypted data. However, contrary to what the proponents of back doors believe, the reality is very different. What is obvious to all cryptographers and security experts is: you cannot build “back doors” which only the “good guys” can use. The “bad guys” will quickly discover them and gain entry. You only need to look at the spate of hacks and data breaches in the news to understand the difficulty of maintaining data security, even without the handicap of a government-imposed insecure back door, an issue addressed this past summer in a publication entitled Keys Under Doormats.

From a practical perspective, the majority of data infrastructure is now protected by strong encryption. Do we really think that businesses are going to “trade in” their “good” security for the “bad” security governments want us to have? Encryption is essential to preserving security in an insecure Internet. Any website which uses “https” uses encryption with which to communicate securely. This enables the secure transfer of passwords, credit card numbers, mobile payments, etc. Encryption protects your medical records, your banking records, your financial transactions, and permits you to securely file your taxes online. This is only a fraction of the security uses it provides throughout the entire networked infrastructure of the Internet.

But encryption serves a far broader purpose than facilitating security: it enables our very freedom in a digital world. Encryption is a vital tool for enabling journalists to operate in countries without freedom of the press; allowing dissidents to co-ordinate against oppressive regimes; and in democracies, encryption empowers ordinary citizens to counteract intrusive government surveillance programs.

Even without back doors, there are still numerous avenues available for intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate terrorists and criminals. Encryption may protect the content of a message, but it doesn’t hide where it is being sent. This leaves the “metadata” associated with an email, text or phone call accessible to the authorities with the production of a proper warrant or court order. Moreover, seasoned law enforcement and intelligence operatives will tell you that what is needed to catch the “bad guys” is good old-fashioned “boots on the ground” infiltration of their networks, and information sharing among various arms of law enforcement and intelligence. Both in 9/11 and in the Paris attacks, greater co-ordination among these agencies may have potentially served to subvert or minimize the attacks.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

More on Identity Theft:

Image: oneinchpunch

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team