|
Encryption is a method of
encoding almost any kind of data that is transmitted electronically so
that only the intended recipient can read the data. Cryptography -the
science of encryption- has been used to encode and decode secret
messages during wartime. Modern versions of encryption and high-speed
computers make possible the secure encoding of e-mail, voice and
-within a few years- even video output in real time. These advances
don't prevent transmitted information from being intercepted -which is
nearly impossible to do- but they do enable a high degree of privacy
for the messages exchanged.
Encryption uses mathematical
algorithms that substitute strings of numbers for bits of information.
Decryption of the information requires a mathematical key. The more
digits used to encrypt each unit of information, the harder the
information will be to decrypt by anyone who does not have the key to
do so (i.e. anyone but the intended recipient). Thus, "strong
encryption" is encryption that uses many digits to encode a given
piece of information and is the way to achieve the greatest amount of
privacy when communicating over wires or radio frequencies.
The government has attempted to
regulate strong encryption out of concern that criminal activities
might be coordinated under cover of encryption that was sophisticated
enough to prevent law enforcement from capturing the criminals or
preventing the crime. Although the courts have protected software
makers' rights to produce software that utilizes strong encryption,
the government has succeeded in banning the export of software that
uses strong encryption. Since many companies cannot afford to produce
two versions of their software -a strong version for the domestic
market and a weaker version for the foreign market- they produce one
weaker version that will sell on both markets. In this way, the
government has had some success in limiting the spread of strong
encryption.
Of course, our government cannot
prevent people in other countries from producing strong encryption
products, and some of the best encryption technology comes from
Europe, South Africa, and Scandinavia. This means that anyone who has
enough interest in obtaining the best privacy may do so fairly easily.
Those with a strong interest in keeping their communications private
-especially those fearing prosecution for serious crimes or acts of
terrorism- would be foolish to bother with weak encryption software.
Government regulation of strong encryption keeps it out of the hands
of ordinary, law-abiding citizens without reducing crime or terrorism.
This logic is difficult to
escape. So why has the government been so persistent in continuing to
regulate strong encryption? One possible answer is that while
regulation fails to achieve the avowed goal of aiding law enforcement
agents, it does increase the state's capacity to monitor
communications of ordinary citizens. It is difficult for even
basically law-abiding citizens not to run afoul of the government at
one time or another. Secure telecommunications allows people to
express unpopular political views without fear of reprisal, to protect
their freedom of association from would-be intruders (including those
who justify such intrusion in the name of the public interest), and to
engage in mutually beneficial exchanges that harm no one but do not
conform to the government's idea of acceptable behavior. All of these
activities should be protected in a free society, but all are
activities that government has a vested interest in controlling,
either directly or through the intimidation that comes from the fear
of surveillance.
In the final analysis, any
imbalance in the capacity to monitor others which favors the state
over the average citizen is an open invitation for abuse. Even
imbalances that are justified as means to laudable ends are vulnerable
to corruption for the very fact that it is the corrupt who have the
most to gain from holding an informational advantage. Nobel Laureate
Friedrich Hayek's famous article "Why the Worst Get on Top"12
makes a compelling case for the inevitability of corruption when the
power of the state is not strictly limited by the rights of
individuals.
Economist David Friedman makes a
fascinating case that the spread of strong encryption will produce a
radically freer society as technological advancement enables more and
more social and economic interaction to occur online.13
He predicts that free association and free markets will become harder
to control and regulate, while the average person's capacity to
protect himself from crime or other intrusions on her rights will
increase as a result of stronger, more versatile forms of encryption.
The link between economic freedom and quality of life at all levels of
society has been powerfully documented historically and through modern
international statistical comparisons. As with Social Security
privatization, the constraints this plan would place on government's
ability to overreach its proper role produce powerful economic
advantages and a great increase in personal freedom and autonomy.
Author: David Beers
See also: David Brin's The
Transparent Society for detailed and
skeptical discussion of strong encryption.
Questions and comments welcome: Send to adc@mackinac.org
|
