The encryption question: Matters of trust
The National Security Agency faces yet another trust issue — one involving commercial encryption used worldwide to keep passwords, credit-card numbers and other confidential information secure online.
Documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden show “the NSA has sought to defeat” such security measures, using “financial incentives, secret courts and outright theft to acquire the digital ‘keys' to widely used commercial encryption technologies,” The Washington Times reports. The NSA even worked with its British counterpart to insert “back doors” into such software, enabling access to encrypted online content.
Retired Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the NSA's former boss, says that if U.S. agencies can exploit such vulnerabilities, they are “legally and morally obliged” to do so “to help keep the American people safe” from terrorists and criminals who also use commercial encryption. And the NSA maintains it uses such capabilities only against legitimate foreign intelligence targets.
Yet the NSA has conflicting missions: defeating encryption for surveillance purposes while using it to protect U.S. communications. Yes, it needs to gather intelligence — but undermining public trust in encryption is worse than having no such security at all.
Innovation can offset these revelations' chilling effect on the commercial encryption industry. But it can't offset the NSA's further loss of public trust resulting from these revelations.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- U.N. Watch: More propaganda
- Trumpeting ObamaCare: The Medicaid factor
- The Solyndra scandal: Government culpability
- The Box
- Sunday pops
- President Carbon: Hypocrisy’s trip
- Ford City facts: Blaming the messenger
- The PBS/HBO deal: More, more, more
- U.N. Watch: What travel ban?
- The Thursday wrap
- Saturday essay: Cusps of change