The Feds Need to Embrace Encryption

In 2003, I advocated for licensing computer users just like you license drivers. This idea remains valid, maybe even more so if you consider last year’s election hacks. At the time, nobody took it seriously. But as we saw in the 2016 election, some training is necessary. But that’s not all that is needed, apparently.

I consider myself well-versed in security issues, yet my LinkedIn and Twitter accounts have been compromised. Some of this can be attributed to loose security at those operations. The attacks were not targeted at me per se, but my accounts started spewing spam.

So even with training, anything is possible. Even if the DNC and Clinton campaign had been more careful, they still could’ve still be hacked; the campaign chair was duped by a phishing scheme. But as the talking heads battle over who to blame, one word is rarely discussed: encryption.

If these stolen emails were so important, why weren’t they encrypted? Yes, the feds are crafty, but not that crafty. In fact, encryption is often frowned upon by the FBI and intelligence agencies because they say it makes terrorists who use it harder to catch. I have to assume that intelligence agencies use it now and again, but that may not even be true. Whatever weak protection was used, it didn’t deter Ed Snowden from lifting a ton of state secrets.

This all stems from the silly notion that terrorists (and criminals) will use encryption, so it should be discouraged. They say it should be illegal. And let’s not even talk about it. A good phrase should emerge: “when encryption is outlawed only outlaws will use encryption.” It’s dumb.

When you hear political debates, just toss your thoughts into the conversation. “Why didn’t they use encryption? There would have been no problem.” Then again, maybe we should re-think licensing people to use these machines in the first place.