Limiting encryption in everyday communications technologies like smartphones that can be used by terrorists to help evade detection could harm the competitive position globally of companies in the United States, according to a new primer on the encryption debate released by the Republican staff of the House Homeland Security Committee.
The study points out the dilemma on placing restrictions on U.S. companies that wouldn’t apply to foreign companies.
“If the U.S. placed burdensome restrictions on encryption, American technology companies could lose their competitive edge in the global marketplace,” says the 25-page study, Going Dark, Going Forward: A Primer on the Encryption Debate. “Moreover, studies suggest that two-thirds of the entities selling or providing encrypted products are outside of the United States. Thus, bad actors could still obtain technology from foreign vendors irrespective of U.S. legislation.”
The primer was released on Wednesday and is the result of more than 100 meetings and briefings over the past year between committee staff with various stakeholders affected by the use of encryption. It also follows last December’s deadly terrorist shootings by a radicalized husband and wife team in San Bernardino.
In the aftermath of the attack, the FBI eventually took Apple [AAPL] to court in an attempt to have the company unencrypt the couple’s iPhone to enable the agency to help ascertain whether they had accomplices. The case was made moot after the FBI enlisted the help of a third party to unlock access to the smartphone.
Still, the debate about law enforcement access to encrypted technology and the balance between security and privacy continues. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House panel, and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), in February introduced a bill authorizing a Digital Security Commission to “address national security and digital security without letting encrypted communications become a safe haven for terrorists,” according to the committee.
The committee says in the primer that its study yielded no easy solutions, adding that “No matter what path emerged, there were always troublesome trade-offs.” Hence, the need for the expert commission to explore encryption and law enforcement as well as the implications for law enforcement as digital technology continues to evolve, it says.
“The encryption debate in America is a contentious one, with no immediate solution or clear path forward,” McCaul said in a statement. “Even in the wake of recent terrorist attacks in America and the west, encryption remains a major challenge to law enforcement and the intelligence community. A national Commission would bring key players and leading minds to the table to develop recommendations for maintaining privacy and digital security, while also finding ways to keep criminals and terrorists from exploiting these technologies to escape justice.”
The study also points out that the security versus encryption issue isn’t local to the U.S. but is something governments worldwide are struggling with through policy and legislation.
“This is resulting in a patchwork of inconsistent laws and proposals governing the same issue to the detriment of law-abiding citizens and the benefit of criminals and terrorists,” the study says. It also says that current legislative proposals all have “significant trade-offs” and are unlikely to address the issue.