Essay
7.5 grade opinion op-ed article digital justice
- Vak
- Digital Justice
- Instelling
- Universiteit Leiden (UL)
7.5 graded opinion article on encryption and law enforcement
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 5 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 5 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Encryption and Law Enforcement:Perfect Frenemies
An Op-Ed on how the oxymoron of frenemies perfectly describes the relationship
between law enforcement and encryption
S2309866
Digital Justice
Dr. de Busser
08-03-2023
Wordcount: 923
, Introduction
If one word could apply to the relationship of law enforcement and encryption, it would be the
– mostly used in pop-culture – oxymoron “frenemy.” A word that combines friend and enemy, working
together and against each other (“Definition of frenemy”, 2023). An often-heard phrase is “law-
enforcement versus encryption,” but the negative connotation of the connector “versus” dismisses the
positive relationship law enforcement and encryption can have. The connector between these two should
therefore not be versus, the more neutral connector “and” is better suiting when describing the two. This
paper explains why “versus” is not an adequate connector when discussing the relationship between
encryption and law enforcement and argues that they must be seen as frenemies: friends and enemies.
First, the negative side is discussed followed by the positive facets.
Enemies
Law enforcement is in place to enforce the laws and rights for the nation which it serves
(OHCHR, 1979). Primary duties of law enforcement include apprehension, investigation and the
detention of individuals suspected of criminal offenses (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). Some argue
that encryption is a roadblock for law enforcement to perform these primary duties and you could
therefore say it is law enforcement “versus” encryption (The United States Department of Justice, 2020;
Williams, 2020; Koomen; 2021).
A famous case where the connector “versus” could be used, is in the San Bernardino terrorist attack
case. The FBI wanted Apple to develop and electronically sign new software that would facilitate the
FBI unlocking the locked and encrypted iPhone of one of the two shooters. Apple declined this, as it has
done multiple times before when the United States district courts tried to oblige them under the “ All
Writs Act”1 to extract data and decrypt encryption (Espino, 2017; Carollo, 2016; Burum & Holmes,
2016).
Encryption can obstruct law enforcement from accessing data (on time) to investigate or prevent
potential crimes from occurring. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBU) argue that
this obstruction creates a “lawless” space for terrorists, criminals and other malicious actors to exploit.
By using high-end encryption methods such as end-to-end encryption, the subjects of investigation can
now control whether or not they want their communications to be the subject of lawful surveillance
(Federal Bureau of investigation, 2022b). The FBI mention on their website that they are extremely
concerned about the use of robust encryption products and even calls it a “tremendous threat to public
safety and national security (FBI, 2022a)”.
Thus, there is a battle going on between strong encryption and law enforcement trying to break it. Law
enforcement wants tech firms to help them weaken their enemy (encryption) by providing backdoors
that provide exceptional access by law enforcement to encrypted data (Schneier, 2016; Endeley, 2019;
Keene, 2021) .
But is it true encryption threatens national security? In the 2019 Global Threat Assessment by the
WeProtect Global Alliance, it was set out that there is a severe risk of children being groomed online by
inaccessible encrypted services (WeProtect Global Alliance, 2019). Multiple national intelligence
1
The All Writs Act grants the power to all courts established by act of Congress to issue all writs necessary and
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law; extraordinary
writs serve to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction (28 U.S. Code, n.d.)
2
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper annaduperron. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 56326 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen