Oct 8, 2019

DOJ's latest case against encryption: It helps child predators

The Justice Department's latest arguments against encryption, presented at a summit in Washington Friday, focus on child predators and take aim at only certain kinds of data.

Why it matters: This isn't the first salvo in the encryption debate — it wasn't even the first last week — but it does show how Attorney General William Barr plans to make the case for "back doors" in encryption, a case law enforcement agencies have tried and failed to win since the 1990s.

Driving the news: Law enforcement officials have long argued that when tech firms use secure encryption methods, police and intelligence agencies can't access potential evidence even when they have a warrant.

  • Cryptographers and security experts note that there's no way to weaken encryption for the FBI without weakening it for everyone else — including hackers, thieves and foreign spies.

The arguments made at the Friday summit offer some new twists to the debate.

Child exploitation is the new terrorism: Under former FBI Director James Comey, the last DOJ official in charge of making the case against encryption, the main argument was that encryption enabled terrorism. Friday's summit shifted the argument to child predators.

  • Multiple officials noted that 90% of submissions to a child exploitation tip line, used by tech companies to notify authorities of misuse of their platforms, came from Facebook. If Facebook began to use strong encryption practices, authorities would lose some of that visibility.

Changing the debate: Barr is explicitly narrowing his case for limiting encryption to chat apps and data at rest (i.e. data sitting on a hard drive). But encryption is also important for "data in transit" — it's what prevents eavesdroppers from capturing banking or e-commerce transactions.

  • Focusing on data at rest and messages is an implicit admission by the government that implementing workarounds to encryption is inherently dangerous — and not needed when there's an alternative, like sending a warrant to a bank or retailer.
  • Risk management is a more mature way to view the encryption debate than the overconfident approach the DOJ has taken in the past. Officials have previously argued that weakening encryption brings no additional risk — FBI Director Christopher Wray made that argument at the summit — but no recognized expert is known to agree with that assertion.

Go deeper

Updated 39 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Updates: George Floyd protests continue past curfews

Police officers wearing riot gear push back demonstrators outside of the White House on Monday. Photo: Jose Luis Magana/AFP via Getty Images

Protests over the death of George Floyd and other police-related killings of black people continued Tuesday across the U.S. for the eighth consecutive day, prompting a federal response from the National Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

The latest: Even with early curfews in New York City and Washington, D.C., protesters are still out en masse. Some protesters in D.C. said they were galvanized by President Trump's photo op in front of St. John's Church on Monday and threat to deploy U.S. troops in the rest of country if violence isn't quelled, NBC News reports.

Updated 49 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Trump backs off push to federalize forces against riots

Photo: Brendan Smialowski /AFP via Getty Images

A day after threatening to federalize forces to snuff out riots across the country, the president appears to be backing off the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act, sources familiar with his plans tell Axios.

What we're hearing: Aides say he hasn’t ruled out its use at some point, but that he's “pleased” with the way protests were handled last night (apart from in New York City, as he indicated on Twitter today) — and that for now he's satisfied with leaving the crackdown to states through local law enforcement and the National Guard.

What we expect from our bosses

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

Workers — especially millennials and Gen Zers — are paying close attention to the words and actions of their employers during national crises, such as the protests following the killing of George Floyd in police custody.

Why it matters: American companies have an enormous amount of wealth and influence that they can put toward effecting change, and CEOs have the potential to fill the leadership vacuum left by government inaction. More and more rank-and-file employees expect their bosses to do something with that money and power.