White House Allegedly Not Supporting Senate's Anti-Encryption Legislation
Beware assuming this means the administration is pro-encryption.


Reuters has an "exclusive" from sources connected to the White House saying the Obama administration is not going to be publicly supporting proposed Senate legislation that would require tech companies to assist law enforcement in cracking the security of their own devices and software.
Take note, though, that the reporting by Mark Hosenball and Dustin Volz does not indicate what, exactly, is the reason the administration is holding back:
The decision all but assures that the years-long political impasse over encryption will continue even in the wake of the high-profile effort by the Department of Justice to force Apple to break into an iPhone used by a gunman in last December's shootings in San Bernardino, California.
President Obama suggested in remarks last month that he had come around to the view that law enforcement agencies needed to have a way to gain access to encrypted information on smartphones.
But the administration remains deeply divided on the issue, the sources said.
While the draft legislation being put together by bipartisan Senate surveillance state supporters Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) has not been publicly released yet, sources have indicated the proposed law would legally authorize what the FBI attempted to do with Apple in its efforts to break through the security of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook's work iPhone. It would allow a federal judge to order a tech company to assist the government in bypassing the security of its devices or software. Such a law would end the need to try to convince a judge that the ancient All Writs Act could be used to draft tech companies to assist the government.
If the Reuters sources are accurate, it's easy to assume this seriously reduces the chance that an encryption-defeating law will even pass this year, let alone get to the president's desk before the end of his term.
But keep in mind that the administration is likely still monkeying around with the text behind the scenes. The administration had previously taken a dim view of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), which called for companies and retailers to share private consumer data with the government in order to help fight cybercrime. The administration even threaten to veto early versions of the bill. But Volz at Reuters also revealed last December that the Obama administration was actually quietly behind-the-scenes influencing the legislation to make it broader and allow the authority granted by CISA to share your user data without you even knowing to be used fight all sorts of crimes that have nothing to do with cybersecurity. Then the law was renamed, shoved into the December omnibus spending bill, and passed with almost no discussion and debate.
Whatever this administration has said publicly, the policies it has actually pursued do not indicate that the executive branch acknowledges much restraint on its authority. I would be skeptical of the idea that the administration might oppose encryption-busting legislation because they're concerned it gives the Department of Justice too much power.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
President Obama suggested in remarks last month that he had come around to the view that law enforcement agencies needed to have a way to gain access to encrypted information on smartphones.
Let's see... side with the state or side with the people? Which will he choose?
The state is the people. It's corporations that aren't people.
Any time this administration even thinks it's doing something that will be popular, it trumpets it from the rooftops. If it isn't doing that, that tells you all you need to know. It's not like they aren't predictable as hell.
They like to "leak" everything they do, so that when it's not popular Obama can deny it as just a rumor or an internal discussion.
The degree of the media's complicity in that is sickening. "But if we revealed our sources, we wouldn't have access any more!" Access to what? Being an accomplice?
Well, yeah. They have access to the powerful. That's heady stuff, and they want it. They're basically court hangers-on, and they're going to act like it.
So the media are like the guys in Entourage?
Latent homosexual?
Wait, does that make the media Drama, Turtle, or E?
I'm going with Drama.
How are you not The Sherpa?
As much as I love Val Kilmer, I'm in a lot better shape than he is. You can be Gary Busey, though. Enjoy. Go scare the shit out of Turtle.
"Listen you snot-nose little shit, I was takin' shrapnel in Khe Sanh when you were crappin' in your hands and rubbin' it on your face."
One of the grocers in town runs a commercial asking listeners if they've "stopped to think about the important things in life," but the woman has a slight lisp so I hear is lice. The important things in lice. It's all I can think about, now.
Isn't thetree a term for when someone publicly says something and then, when out of the public eye, does the opposite?
Is there not also a term for someone who, instead of standing on principle, goes with the flow of the majority?
Ducking autocorrect!
Maybe one of the SXSW kids got to him backstage.