Recently the debate over encryption systems has taken on new interest. To date, law enforcement has relied upon the ability to access communications data through “back doors”, enabling them to essentially by-pass restrictive security measures. The FBI and other administration officials have taken a supportive posture suggesting the Tech industry be required to include “back doors” in their software development.

So what exactly are “back doors”? Essentially, they are software gaps that exist embedded within the software by programmers as part of the development process. The Tech industry is in disagreement with law enforcement’s suggestion to require this manner of access citing concerns over “leaving the door open,” so to speak, for fear of hackers infiltrating their systems and exfiltrating sensitive or private customer data.

Law enforcement has maintained the usefulness of this “back door” access as an important investigative tool for identifying and tracking communications. Terror groups and individuals have demonstrated their proficiency and propensity to utilize multiple telecommunications and social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. for nefarious purposes. In the interest of maintaining transparency, these communications records remain accessible to law enforcement typically through subpoena. The Tech industry continues to refuses to introduce these vulnerabilities into their heavily encrypted environment.



This issue is likely to remain at the forefront of discussion, but it forces citizens and the business community to ask themselves — Would they support the practice of data access by law enforcement to combat terror even though it meant a reduction in the level of privacy Americans have come to demand? We have to ask ourselves at some point, what is the level of our “Willingness to Pay” in order to safeguard our national security?

Government officials have yet to formally weigh in on the matter and Tech industry leaders such as Apple’s Tim Cook have only publicly commented on the need to balance both “privacy and security.” Inevitably, this “balance” will likely leave one side of the conversation discontent over the final decision; however no current projection or time frame has been identified for legislative resolution on the matter.