Submission: Project 3
People have a right to manual encryption in the same way that they have a right to wear a Kevlar vest out the door each morning ; they may do it as many times as they want, though many people would probably come to question the tradeoff they are making between security versus time.
The right to privacy is never explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it is alluded to in the fourth amendment through “the right to be secure in [our own] persons, houses, papers and effects.” In the twenty-first century, encryption is the most secure way for us to achieve digital privacy, and that makes it a fundamental right. Claiming that our right to encryption does more harm than good by locking out the government is similar to claiming that our right against unreasonable search and seizure does more harm than good by locking out law enforcement. The only notable difference between the two is that one is physical while the other is digital. While physical warrants are certainly acceptable in many cases to apprehend a suspect, it is only socially acceptable once the need to infringe upon the right is proven beyond a doubt. To make a proper transition from physical to digital, circumventing encryption by ordering a workaround would have to be proven beyond a doubt by a similar kind of ‘digital’ warrant. Even then, the process of developing a workaround would have to be kept secret within a contained environment, in order to prevent any knowledge or code from leaking to the outside world.
Many people do not consciously think about the workings of encryption in their day to day lives, though they probably use it without fail on a regular basis. This is very similar to how nearly everyone drives, yet only a small percentage of those that do are actually aware of the intricacies of how a car works. Is it because of indifference? Efficiency? Or maybe it’s out of ignorance? Regardless of the reason, abstraction of complexity is an important part of life in the twenty-first century. As a computer scientist, encryption is very important to me because I am aware of how it works and what it does for us. Is it important enough for me to take a political stance based on the issue? Certainly. Would I force my agenda onto the less technologically inclined? Probably not. I would openly give my knowledge or opinion of the issue to them, but I am of the mind that everyone should form their own educated opinion before contributing themselves wholly to an issue. I would feel much better about the future of security if those with more to say on the issue had the opportunity to speak with a louder voice.
I don’t really see the issue as personal privacy versus national security. No one would argue that either one of those is a bad thing. Instead, I view it as an opportunity to set guidelines as to how the two of them will interact in a way they’ve never interacted before. In that sense, I’m placing my effort and faith in a future where we can guarantee both privacy and security at once.
dzaragoz 