Missing Link: Crypto Wars – the endless dispute over secure encryption

“The fight is over, our boys have won.” Steven Levy mentions James Bidzos in his book on “code rebels”. With these words, the former manager of cryptographic solutions firm RSA Data Security took the stage in 2000 for the opening of the RSA conference he founded in San Francisco. For Bidzos and Levy then there was no doubt: the “Cypherpunks” had been able to prevail against the US government in the first Crypto War and thus “save privacy”.

The crypto war is not over

But the war for secure encryption in the digital age is far from over. It flares up again and again with new shades, even if all the main arguments have long been exchanged. The main problem: There can be no “balanced” compromise in this dispute, as politicians are usually so eager to fight. Because if you give up IT security and data protection to get a little more public security, you will eventually lose both.

It’s one of the recurring zombie controversies over fundamental rights like data retention, where constant dripping is supposed to sink into stone. Currently, public discussion in Europe has increased significantly, as demonstrated by many exchanges.

Prevent “illegal access”

Nobody in the European Commission intends to ban or weaken cryptography. No backdoors should be incorporated into cryptographically protected products. This was confirmed Thursday by representatives of the government institution in Brussels in an online exchange on the “future of cryptography in the EU” organized by the Internet Society (ISOC).

“The Commission is a strong supporter of advanced cryptography,” said Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, Head of Unit in the Directorate-General for Home Affairs. Technology is important in preventing “illegal access” to personal information. Inevitably, however, the big but followed: Criminals also use cryptography to carry out their actions, the cybercrime expert pointed out. EU law enforcement agencies said 75% of their cases are affected.

Equivalent to the search for an apartment “in the digital space”

For Bauer-Bulst, one thing is certain: investigators’ “legitimate access” to the data they need must be guaranteed. There must be an adequate equivalent in the digital space to the ability of law enforcement to search an apartment with a court order. Metadata about a user’s location or about the device and browser they use has also provided important clues to law enforcement. However, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) has repeatedly made it clear that sensitive profiles can be created with it and that similar protection applies to this field as regards content data.

Paul Nemitz, Chief Adviser to the Commission’s Directorate-General for Legal Affairs and Consumer Protection, made a similar statement. According to him, the police always had the possibility to read letters or listen to a telephone conversation “in real time” in case of problems. Similarly to data retention, where the Court of Justice has just relativized its previous line, it is therefore important to achieve “practical concordance”.