The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
An end to end-to-end encryption?
Episode 407 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
Is the European Union (EU) about to save the FBI from Going Dark by essentially outlawing end-to-end encryption? Jamil Jaffer and Nate Jones tell us that a new directive aimed at preventing child sex abuse might just do the trick. That view is backed by people who've been fighting the bureau on encryption for years.
The Biden administration is prepping to impose some of the toughest sanctions ever on Chinese camera maker Hikvision, Jordan Schneider reports. No one wants to defend Hikvision's role in enabling China's Uyghur policy, but I'm skeptical that we should spend all that ammo on a company that is far from the greatest national security threat we face. Jamil is more comfortable with the measure, and Jordan reminds me that China's economy is shaky enough that it may not pick a fight to save Hikvision. Speaking of which, Jordan schools me on the likelihood that Xi Jin Ping's hold on power will be loosened even by a combination of the Chinese tech downturn, harsh pandemic lockdowns, and the grim lesson provided by Putin's ability to move without check from tactical error to strategic blunder and then to historic disaster.
Speaking of products with more serious national security impact than Hikvision, Nate and I try to figure out why the effort to get Kaspersky software out of U.S. infrastructure is still stalled. I argue that the Commerce Department should take the blame.
In a rare triumph of common sense and science, the wave of dumb laws attacking face recognition may be receding as lawmakers finally notice what's been obvious for five years: The claim that face recognition is "racist" is false. Virginia, fresh off GOP electoral gains, has revamped its law on face recognition so it now more or less makes sense. In related news, I puzzle over why Clearview AI accepted a settlement of the ACLU's lawsuit under Illinois's biometric law.
Nate and I debate how much authority Cyber Command should have to launch actions and intrude on third country networks without going through the interagency process. A Biden White House review of that question seems to have split the difference between the laissez-faire spirit of the Trump administration and the analysis-paralysis of the Obama years.
Quelle surprise! Jamil concludes that the EU's regulation of cybersecurity is an overambitious and questionable expansion of the U.S. approach.
The EU may not be alone. Jordan notes the Defense Department's effort to keep small businesses who take its money from decamping to China once they start to succeed. Jordan and I fear that the cure may be worse than the disease.
I get to say I told you so about the unpersuasive and cursory opinion issued by United States District Judge Robert Pitman, when he enjoined Texas' social media law. The Fifth Circuit has overturned his injunction, so the bill will take effect, at least for a while. In my view some of the provisions are constitutional and others are a stretch; but Judge Pitman's refusal to do a serious severability analysis means that all of them will get a try-out over the next few weeks.
Jamil and I debate geofenced search warrants and the reasons why companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo want them restricted.
In quick hits,
- Jamil and I trade views on whether the Biden White House has effectively managed the lagging implementation of its landmark cybersecurity executive order.
- I note the important new protocol for implementing the Budapest Convention. On the principle that you can judge a policy by its enemies, this protocol is looking pretty good.
- Jamil highlights a study – by Europeans, no less – that suggests that General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is killing innovation in the Android app market.
- Jamil also flags a new study of the Chinese Offensive Cyber Landscape.
- And I suggest that the event with the biggest tech policy impact last week may have been none of these things; the real policy driver may turn out to be the meltdown in tech stocks generally and in cryptocurrency values in particular.
Download the 407th Episode (mp3)
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!
The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.
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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You can't end end-to-end encryption ... if it is "outlawed", it will simply grow in steganographic directions.
All cyber security should end. Develop an app that finds unauthorized hackers, and send a drone to launch a grenade into their apartment, even if the family and friends are there. To deter. Frack the hackers. The deceased have a low recidivism rate. I, for one, am really sick of changing passwords, requiring special characters, and not being allowed to use the last 20 past ones. Kill all hackers. End the rent seeking.
One of the big lessons of the last 15 years is that decentralized protocols don't thrive. Whether it's social media or cryptocurrency or whatever else, being able to monetize small transactions gives a huge funding (and thereby commercial) advantage to centralized services. And that's where bans on end-to-end encryption can be implemented.
I'm sick of the traitors to freedom in our own government trying to stop encryption just so they can get a few more notches on their belt for crime, in a world where billions don't have to merely imagine a boot stepping on their face, forever.
And before someone says it's outlawed there, so what? They should be following our example, not the other way around.
I don't understand why the government doesn't want to let us breathe. They want to know what we are doing with our lives even on our android apps
Interesting read! The debate around end-to-end encryption is certainly a complex one. It's crucial to strike a balance between privacy and security. In today's digital age, protecting user data is paramount.
On a related note, I recently completed a GDPR training that shed light on the importance of data protection and privacy compliance. If anyone is interested in understanding more about GDPR and its implications, feel free to check out my training link https://humanfocus.co.uk/e-learning/gdpr-awareness-training/.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the evolving landscape of encryption and privacy!