Latest in Going Dark


What’s Involved in Vetting a Security Protocol: Why Ray Ozzie’s Proposal for Exceptional Access Does Not Pass Muster

For almost a decade, the FBI has been stating that law enforcement is “going dark"—meaning it is increasingly unable to listen in to communications and, more recently, to open locked devices in which important evidence lives.


Building on Sand Isn’t Stable: Correcting a Misunderstanding of the National Academies Report on Encryption

The encryption debate is messy. In any debate that involves technology—encryption, security systems and policy, law enforcement, and national security access—the incomparable complexities and tradeoffs make choices complicated. That's why getting the facts absolutely right matters. To that end, I’m offering a small, but significant, correction to a post Alan Rozenshtein wrote on Lawfare on March 29.

going dark

Revelations on the FBI’s Unlocking of the San Bernardino iPhone: Maybe the Future Isn't Going Dark After All

Lawfare readers may be familiar with the San Bernardino case in which the FBI took Apple to court over the locked iPhone of the dead terrorist. I certainly am. I testified in Congress about the case in March 2016 and recently published a book on whether law enforcement should have exceptional access to locked devices. (Short answer: no).


Illegal Secrecy? The Prosecution of Phantom Secure and Its Implications for the Going Dark Debate

Is it a crime to provide communication services designed to be proof against government access?

This question does not normally arise in the Going Dark debate. The key question instead has been whether lawmakers should impose an affirmative obligation on providers to maintain their ability to provide the government with access to user communications in response to a warrant or other legal process. That is, the current debate assumes no such obligation is clearly established by current law.


NAS Report: A New Light in the Debate over Government Access to Encrypted Content

The encryption debate dates back to Clinton administration proposals for the “clipper chip” and mandatory deposit of decryption keys. But that debate reached new prominence in connection with the FBI’s efforts to compel Apple to decrypt the phone of a dead terrorist in the San Bernardino case.


Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Remarks on Encryption

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein delivered the following remarks about encryption on Tuesday at the U.S. Naval Academy. The following is his speech as prepared for delivery:

Thank you, Professor Kosseff, for that kind introduction. I am honored to be here today with some of our nation’s finest public servants.

Subscribe to Lawfare