Unlock free Digest editor
Roula Khalaf, editor of FT, chooses her favorite story in this weekly newsletter.
How many authority should the Democratic Government have to “sniff” on the online data and communications of citizens? The Government of the UK has used new legal powers to demand that Apple create a “rear door” that allows the bodies to enforce the law to access the encrypted data of the user transferred to the cloud. Apple answered instead of withdrawing from Britain safest The cloud storage service uses the encryption of the end to the end, which Apple says that he cannot even access data.
Britain is not alone. The Swedish Government wants encrypted messages to exchange messages such as signal and WhatsApp to open a A similar rear door. The signal threatens to leave Sweden if it becomes a law. Cases represent the greatest conflict so far between the understandable desire of the Western government Police crimes like terrorism And the abuse of the child online, and the golden standard encryption is now widely used to protect the privacy of users in messages for messages and clouds.
Both cases echo the battle when the FBI tried to force Apple To help him to break into the iPhone, which the terrorist used in the 2015 California Shot. Apple said that if it creates an iPhone rear door for the FBI, malicious actors can detect it and use it to crack other phones. At the end of the Haki company unlocked the phone For the FBI, ending standing.
British and Swedish demands are much wider. Using their investigative authority law – which critics called the “Snoopers Charter” – the United Business issued a notification requires an apple In order to enable the British implementation of the law, armed with a court order, to touch encrypted backups and other cloud information, anywhere in the world.
But the basic dilemma is the same. When millions of people send or store online sensitive information about, say, their finances or health, data protection is most important. Extreme encryption, where only the user, not the service provider holds the key, is the best protection.
Most cyber -security experts claim that government bodies cannot be accessed without the creation of vulnerability that hackers, including authoritarian states, may be abused. Something like this has already happened. In an attack called “Salt Typhoon”, Chinese hackers took advantage of the back door from the US Government in US telecommunications networks last year to access calls and text data Top politicians.
In the UK, about 239 groups, companies and cyber -safety experts have invited the Government to abolish His request for Apple, saying that “threatens the safety and privacy of millions.” Using similar arguments, two -party members of two US Congress Supervisory Committees asked Tulsi Gabbard, a new National Director of Intelligence Intelligence, to demand that the UK requires withdraws his order -I consider limiting intelligence sharing in the UK if it is not.
This is without a doubt a thorny question. No one wants terrorists and abusers of children can avoid discovering. Some safety officers in the UK insisted for privacy protection can coexist With a “exceptional lawful approach” and claimed that technological companies could find a smart solution. Technological experts are opposed to that there is still no stupidity of compromise.
But almost all major technological companies rightly cooperate with legitimate requirements for law enforcement that do not include the “rear door” on a routine basis; Apple’s latest Great Britain Transparency Report shows that it is in accordance with 93 percent of emergency requirements. If a solution that allows this to happen is safely with the ultimate encryption, the cooperation should expand to this area as well. For now, however, governments should treat this type of protection as a common good. Police efforts should not undermine the safety and privacy of a majority that respects the law.
