After Paris Attack: "The enemies of encryption have their knives drawn."

CIA Director John Brennan: "A wakeup call particularly in areas of Europe."



The minions of the national security surveillance state are predictably using the Paris terrorist murders to argue that privacy is a luxury that liberal democracies cannot afford. As Defense One reports, "The enemies of encryption have their knives drawn."

As an example, Defense One notes that CIA Director John Brennan said yesterday, "I do hope this will be a wakeup call particularly in areas of Europe." Before succumbing to this spook scaremongering recall that the federal government's own Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent agency charged by Congress with advising the president on the privacy and civil liberties repercussions relating to fighting terrorism, issued a post-Snowden-surveillance-revelations report that concluded:

"We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation."

Not a single instance. During a time of crisis it is vital to keep in mind the PCLOB's other warning:

"Permitting the government to routinely collect the calling records of the entire nation fundamentally shifts the balance of power between the state and its citizens," the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board warned in its report. "While the danger of abuse may seem remote, given historical abuse of personal information by the government during the twentieth century, the risk is more than merely theoretical."

I assert again that secret government—certainly not terrorism—is always the chief threat to liberty. It also bears noting that in May the French government awarded its spy and police agencies sweeping new surveillance powers and they obviously failed to prevent these horrific attacks.

Defense One is also reporting that warhawk Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is reviving the really bad idea that the government require private companies to install "backdoors" in their communications software:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, also made the case for law enforcement backdoors into encrypted devices, despite concerns from encryption experts that such back doors would weaken the encryption and could be exploited by criminals. "It's time we had another key that would be kept safe and only revealed by means of a court order. Right now, the recruitment, training, and equipping can happen in secure sites and we can not let that continue to happen, with all due respect to my friends in Silicon Valley," McCain said, on the same show.

A similar liberty-destroying idea was soundly rejected in a 2013 report by President Obama's handpicked Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. As I reported:

The fifth salient recommendation [of the RGICT) is that the NSA be forbidden to engineer vulnerabilities into the encryption algorithms that guard global commerce and that the agency be precluded from demanding changes in any product to ease the clandestine collection of information. Such activities have already undermined trust in the security of telecommunications and data storage around the globe.

At the Cato Institute's conference on NSA surveillance in October, Harvard Berkman Center fellow Bruce Schneier noted that a "secure Internet is in everyone's interests. We are all better off if no one can do this kind of bulk surveillance. Fundamentally, security is more important than surveillance." At the same conference, Matt Blaze, an Internet security professor at the University of Pennsylvania, observed that maintaining vulnerabilities in computer code doesn't just make it easier for the NSA to spy; it makes it easier for the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians to spy, and for Internet criminals to steal data and cause other havoc.

Finally, as I reported back in 2014, the RGICT warned:

If there is another significant terrorist attack, the report's authors warn, "many Americans, in the fear and heat of the moment, might support new restrictions on civil liberties and privacy." They add, "The powerful existing and potential capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies might be unleashed without adequate controls. Once unleashed, it could be difficult to roll back these sacrifices of freedom."

Sadly, just a predicted. Now is the time for citizens to defend liberty from the dual threats of terrorism and of pervasive surveillance.

NEXT: Updated! If Syrian Passport of Paris Bomber is a Fake, Will Guvs Let in Refugees?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I assert again that secret government – certainly not terrorism – is always the chief threat to liberty

    Terrorism is only a threat to liberty because governments will use it as an excuse to expand their power and gain more control over the lives of their citizens.

    1. But ISIS is going to establish a caliphate in Kansas!

      1. …as a Kansas resident, folks who say this shit clearly do not respect us flatlanders as much as they should.

        1. You see KU is starting to succumb to the insanity at MU?

          1. I hate them. I hate KU, I hate MU. I hate KState, PittState, and all the rest. Oh yeah, and I hate Ohio State. I hate them all. There is nothing good that they produce. Nothing.

    2. Unfortunately that is not true. When terrorists kill people for drawing cartoons, free speech has been attacked directly.

      1. That’s an attack on people who draw certain cartoons, not free speech in general.

  2. Statists gonna state, I suppose.

    1. Staters gonna state, state, state, state, state

      1. You guys are so sued.

        1. Fair use — transformative use for parody

  3. If encryption without backdoors is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption without backdoors.

    1. 10 comments in and no ‘compulsory backdoor penetration’ security jokes? The commentary quality around here has really begun to wane.

      1. I was just thinking the same thing. Surely we don’t need AC to bring a backdoor joke.

  4. Well, you certainly can see that terrorism leads to all kinds of policy prescriptions. And this one was in Europe, not here, and the reactions have been predictable as if it did occur here. Not hard to see how we got the Patriot Act here after 3000 Americans were killed on American soil. If that was an overreaction, and it was, the rhetoric we see now from some quarters doesn’t surprise me at all.

    1. I don’t think anybody here is surprised. Dismayed, yes, but predictably so.

  5. John Brennan doesn’t have a beard, but he must be one of ISIL’s senior leaders. If the terrorists’ intentions were to steal our freedoms and bankrupt our country, I think they can claim total victory. And I have to hand it to them and John, their game plan was simple. They don’t even have a standing army with which to mount an invasion on us, or a Navy to transport them to our shores, yet because of them, today, the government reads my grandma’s emails and feels her up at the airport. At least leave her a tip next time she goes through security you cheap bastards.

  6. Yep – it’s horrible how encryption led to 911, Paris, and alllllllll the other TERRORRRRIZZZMAZZZ!!!!one!!!111 in between.

    Cut it the FUCK off.

    For the children.

    Fuck the US government, especially this Brennan fucktard.

  7. After Paris Attack: “The enemies of encryption have their knives drawn.”

    It’s ok, I have guns.

    1. +1 lock. stock and smoking barrel

    2. But guns and knives are the same aren’t they? If guns are registered knives should be too!
      And since they are the same if you have a knife (or a car or a baseball bat) you don’t need a gun…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.