There has been tremendous innovation and advancement in the area of information technology. The use of encryption in information technology has expressly and vastly enhanced privacy and security of information for businesses and consumers. However, as services and devices continue to be more protected, the state security and law enforcement agencies are finding it harder to access information. Fighting terrorism and crimes necessitates these agencies to have access to some of this information to investigate and avert such issues. The two sides have resulted in intricate policy predicaments of the information technology age. Although encryption has improved information security for businesses and consumers, it has made it harder for governments to safeguard businesses and consumers from other dangers.
Information Security Companies response to Government Intrusion
From the standpoint of Information security companies, state restriction on information security systems such as encryption will weaken the total safety of businesses and its citizens (Arlitsch et al. 53). The intrusive government approach will bound progressions in information security and security companies within the state which is unable to efficiently compete in the world markets (Abelson et al. 70). Furthermore, efforts to limit or decrease the level of encryption systems are destined to be unsuccessful at preventing terrorist and criminals from accessing this technology. Information security companies can only come up with the complete secure technologies for services and products if they are free from government interference (Abelson et al. 74).
The companies should at all costs prevent the government from authorizing them to modify their product and service designs so that the government can have access to client data. The companies need to oppose any policies compelling them to allow the government to appeal them to take actions that aid an investigation. Such activities may expose users who are non-targeted to other susceptibilities (Arlitsch et al. 53).
The information security firms should only conform to a lawful state request. Besides, information security firms should not limit themselves from formulating changes that make such a state request unlikely to fulfill. Such modifications will not just prevent state access as it will restrict other unapproved parties from hacking into their services and devices (Shah 543). The case of the Apple company and the US law enforcement is on just one phone. If the company agreed to the government request, it would create a precedent for government access (Arlitsch et al. 56). The state security intelligence may use court orders in future to compel information security companies to aid the security agencies to hack into particular accounts and devices (Arlitsch et al. 53).
The consumer is discouraged from embracing devices and services in case national security and law enforcement agencies mistreat this form of authority (Shah 543). Companies need to avoid any government interference as it may lead to consumers distrusting their products and services (Shah 543). Users may decide to engross in depraved safety activities, like deferring or disabling program updates. In so doing, leaving their products susceptible to hackers (Abelson et al. 76). Nevertheless, the companies need to only approve this form of investigatory policies just in narrow statuses. If a robust judicial lapse is in question, such an approach would have a negligible impact on the ordinary law-abiding user. Companies can comply with requests from national security agencies if the judicial body reckons the particular case in question as one that is unique (Shah 543). Federal security agencies and the law enforcement should, therefore, refrain from placing these requests. Still, information security companies must be free to create new security systems that tackle these vulnerabilities since government access is a form of hack that grants a safety flaw (Arlitsch et al. 51).
The recent government exertions to command surprising access to information encrypted in devices and services is likely to diminish advancement in information security systems. For instance, such intrusive and mandatory policies in the US will create an open market for foreign companies in the area of encryption. State policies should not mandate policies that enforce specific technologies but rather policies that create a platform for cooperation between the states and security companies. Such mandatory state policies will proactively stop innovation in security that will lead to a digital world that is less protected. The government, therefore, needs to circumvent policies that may disparage information security and promote the use and development of vibrant encryption system. The state security and law enforcement need to envelop a broader strategy of cooperation between security firms to protect its citizens.
- Abelson, Harold, et al. “Keys Under Doormats: Mandating Insecurity by Requiring Government Access to All Data and Communications.” Journal of Cybersecurity 1.1 (2015): 69-79.
- Arlitsch, Kenning, and Adam Edelman. “Staying Safe: Cyber Security for People and Organizations.” Journal of Library Administration 54.1 (2014): 46-56.
- Shah, R. “Law Enforcement and Data Privacy-A Forward-Looking Approach.” Yale LJ, 125.5 (2015): 543.