Canadian Government Executive - Volume 22 - Issue 5

7 / 32

May 2016 // Canadian Government Executive / 7
Strategy
to create new software code to essentially compromise its exist-
ing encryption. Apple resisted this so-called “back door” arguing
that it is not only technologically costly and complex, but that it
would invariably expose its millions of users to potential privacy
breaches from many potential sources.
Despite initial depictions of this case as simply one phone, the
ramifications are much wider. A New York Attorney General stat-
ed publicly that his office possesses dozens of phones in need of
intervention (many unrelated to terrorism). Another case similar
to the Apple dispute involves the messenger service, WhatsApp
(owned by Facebook), itself embroiled in a conflict with Brazilian
authorities pertaining to the trafficking of narcotics.
Encryption has noble roots. The American television program
60 Minutes, for instance, recently profiled a Russian entrepreneur
and dissident (Pavel Durov) who created a popular messaging
service (Telegram) noted for its impenetrable encryption largely
as a means of circumventing authoritarian rule and fighting cor-
ruption. Yet the service has also become a communications tool
of choice for terrorist and criminal networks, further amplifying
policy and privacy tensions.
On March 22nd, the FBI made the surprising revelation that it
may no longer require Apple’s assistance in unlocking the phone
in question. This unexpected development was a hollow victory
for Apple–since the FBI admitted that a third party appears to
have successfully cracked the company’s encryption code (rais-
ing questions about Apple’s security claims and its assurances to
customers).
On the same day, terrorists killed more than thirty people in
Brussels, an event that French President Francois Hollande would
immediately label an attack on all of Europe (while ties between
Brussels and the preceding Paris attacks quickly emerged). These
events galvanized those in the US Congress already calling for
new legislation to compel technology companies adhere to gov-
ernment requests.
Other American officials instead called for the creation of a “na-
tional encryption commission” to study the issue in a more open
and bi-partisan manner. President Obama’s Defense Secretary
travelled to Silicon Valley to mend fences (a new Department of
Defense Innovation Advisory Board is to be chaired by Google Ex-
ecutive Chairman, Eric Schmidt). On March 28th, the FBI formally
abandoned its court proceedings against Apple, announcing that
a third party had successfully accessed the data residing on the
San Bernardino phone.
In this country, meanwhile, as Matthew Braga wrote in the
Globe and Mail: “you could be excused for not knowing such a
debate exists.” Politicians have said little, while mobile device
makers and social media companies are largely American subsid-
iaries. Blackberry continues to portray itself as the most secure
option–reaffirming its own encryption while acknowledging that
it complies with all lawful requests for assistance. Industry has
otherwise remained mute.
This collective silence is unhelpful. Matters regarding the evo-
lution of personal privacy and government surveillance are too
While national security –
and the invariable focus on
terrorism – is one important
lens, other forces are also
impacting the fluid
boundaries of personal
privacy and the need for
new forms of governmental
action.
TERNAL INTERAC
r marketing
theRE
Buil
urScheme for201
fr