Flutrahunking isn’t a real thing. Well, it wasn’t, I suppose now it means “electronic security.” You know, encryption, good software design, and good hardware design. Security.
U.S. lawmakers are at it again, displaying their utter ignorance in full view of their unfortunately equally ignorant electorate. That’s okay, we’re here to get past that ignorance!
So let’s talk about why your phone needs encryption and why the government needs to drop it already.
Again.
In This Article:
Encryption Only Works With One Key
Encryption with a back door means that there’s one key that anyone can use to get in. That key will leak. If you want proof that these tools leak, just go on eBay and buy one of the “police-only” hacking tools available on there or checkout Microsoft’s business -critical “Golden Key” here. Yes, it’s that easy. We have a long history of people trying to make such keys and those keys leaking. We also have a long history of police misusing their powers to sexually harass women in their custody. We can’t even trust the people we’re supposed to trust with these back doors!
So, if there’s a back door into every single phone on the planet, then everyone’s personal information is at risk. For consumers, that’s your private messages, your bank accounts, your website logins, your 401K, and so on. For politicians and other intelligence assets, it could be state secrets, journals, discoveries, findings, and potentially the only information keeping you alive.
To put this simply enough that even an idiot could understand it: if everyone can get in a locked door, the door isn’t locked. If encryption is broken, then you are not secure.
Who Wants This?
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Here’s a new section for the encryption articles. I thought that it would be important to abandon my usual “here are the facts about encryption” approach for a moment to name and shame the fools trying to destroy the infrastructure that keeps you safe.
- In the U.S., it has largely been a Republican Party talking point. However, recently, it’s become more bipartisan, with Democrats joining their right leaning colleagues.
- New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance has spoken out against encryption for some time. He’s a Democrat, and elected to the position.
- Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has flip-flopped on this matter twice now. But the guy who gets mad about people asking for a full investigation into a credibly accused rapist and sexual abuser isn’t someone with consistent morals. Kavanaugh still has not been thoroughly investigated, but Graham wants every phone to be open for investigation.
- Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), has taken a soft stance against encryption, stating, “At the same time, we’ve seen criminals increasingly use technology, including encryption, in an effort to evade prosecution. We cannot let that happen.”
- Former FBI Director James Comey supported crippling encryption prior to a possible Hatch Act violation proceeding the 2016 election, which helped a president win who was also against encryption.
- You likely saw where this one was going. Donald Trump has spoken out against encryption.
Who’s Defending Consumer-Level Encryption?
Everyone in tech. Everyone. From individual contributors such as myself to CEOs. Even John Oliver defends consumer-level encryption. Security experts, Apple, Facebook, your niece who’s “Really good with those computers.” Everyone. I cannot stress how united the tech industry is on this. Without strong encryption, your phone is less than worthless. It’s like leaving your door open with a sign outside that says when you’re gone for the day and the value of your possessions inside. We don’t want that.
Apple feels so passionate about it that they’re returning to CES to speak about the importance of strong consumer-level encryption. It’ll be the first time Apple has gone to CES since 1992, breaking a nearly three decade-long streak. That’s how important this is.
Why Do They Want to End Encryption?
Why would anyone want this? Good question. The NSA and foreign intelligence agencies want people to have strong encryption because their assets often use consumer-level security. They stand against local police departments, the FBI, and these politicians. The fact is, if there’s a back door, anyone can get it, and that gets in the way of our national security.
The FBI and local police departments are pushing lawmakers hard for this. They see phones as potential sources of evidence when they fail to find hard evidence. Unlocked phones could help in extremely rare cases where the only evidence is on a person’s phone. Most crimes are committed in haste, not premeditated. The idea that there would be no hard evidence because a criminal was careful, but that they’d leave unencrypted messages detailing their crimes on their phones is so backwards and juvenile that it could only come from the kind of people who refuse to listen to logic or experts.
Basically, local police forces, the FBI, and the politicians in bed with them.
I’m Tired
An old logo I made back when the iPhone 5C was relevant. We’re still fighting for security.
Isn’t it obvious? I’ve written this article many times before. It’s to the point where I just think, “Okay, time to write the encryption article again,” and the words just flow out. Embed the John Oliver video so people who don’t like reading a wall of text but will like a good laugh? Check. Give firsthand experience as a software engineer? Check. Abandon all hope of neutrality in my reporting? Check. Couple of deep breaths before I start writing to control my anger? Hello? Danielle? Oh no, we’re going to call someone an idiot in this one again, aren’t we?
This is what climate scientists feel like when trying to tell the politicians collecting money from the oil industry and making false promises to the dying coal industry, that we have to abandon fossil fuels. The only people denying climate change are either idiots are greedy, and the same goes for those fighting against encryption in this fight. Mostly the idiot part.
I didn’t take those deep breaths.
Now, the same people sticking their fingers in their ears shouting “la la la, I’m too old and rich to care about the environment” are also saying, “You don’t need security because I’ve got a golden parachute and an army now.”
Listen, the only reason to support taking away secure phones is to increase the power of the government and decrease the power of the individual. The only reason individuals are in favor of crippling security is because even if they did understand the full ramifications of what they’re saying, they may be wealthy enough to not have much to worry about. Who’s going to get past their security detail to steal their phone and decrypt their information? Even if they did, would it matter to them personally?
What would you do if your bank account was emptied tomorrow by a hacker? Panic? Jump off a roof? Understandable. But what about a person with so much money that they have it stored in multiple accounts around the world? They’re invested in stocks and mutual funds to the point that they don’t even know where all their money is, just that they have a lot of it. They’re not going to panic as much. They might not even notice. And those are the kind of people taking your security away.
Forcing back doors into encryption really won’t help the “good guys” catch the bad guys. It’ll just make you more vulnerable. If they were really the good guys, they’d see that. They aren’t.
Sources:
- Juli Clover, MacRumors
- Sean Gallagher, Ars Technica
- Ben Lovejoy, 9to5Mac, [2]
- Chance Miller, 9to5Mac