The Essential Guide to Hiring a Private Detective for Effective Private Investigations

In the wake of the deadly Paris attacks, encryption has become the dirty word that’s being volleyed back and forth between government agencies who blame it for ISIS’s ability to communicate and tech companies who fiercely oppose Orwellian tactics that inhibit privacy.

It was not always such a minefield. Encryption was designed to protect sensitive materials, such as personal banking accounts and medical information, classified government documents, sensitive business data, etc. from hackers. But now intelligence and security officials say it’s creating headaches for their investigations. They’re not talking about your emails, Web searches, photos or social network posts. What’s raising concern is end-to-end encryption: when data gets encrypted on one device and only gets decrypted when it reaches the recipient’s device. Think Apple’s iMessage, WhatsApp, FaceTime, Telegram or Wickr.  Typical server-based communication systems do not include end-to-end encryption. These systems can only guarantee protection of communications between clients and services, not between communicating parties themselves. Examples are Google Talk and Facebook.

So, yes, while the intent of encryption is meant to protect privacy, how it is used is up to the people using the technology. It could be that an unfaithful husband by the name of Brad is using encrypted emails to communicate with his mistress. Barefoot Professional Investigations has been working with people like Brad’s wife for years. Our computer forensics team is able to recover, decode and preserve evidence and data from a particular computer, cell phone or digital device even when it appears that the computer has been “wiped.”

Of course at the end of that spectrum are those who may be using encrypted communication for far more nefarious plots. The Islamic State, or ISIS, the terror group that has seized control of parts of northern Syria and Western Iraq, claimed responsibility for the attacks in Paris that left 129 dead and many more injured. The sophistication of the attacks has raised questions about the ability of law enforcement to detect conspiracies as extremists use new and different forms of technology to elude investigators.

While there is no direct evidence that ISIS used encrypted communication to coordinate the attacks in Paris, government agencies complain that it has indeed made it exceptionally difficult for intelligence to have insight they need to uncover terrorist cells. Bill Bratton, New York City Police Commissioner, told MSNBC that “we are monitoring suspects and they go dark. They are going onto an encrypted app. They are going onto sites that we cannot access. The technology has been purposely designed by our manufacturers so even they can’t get into their own devices.”

All of this has reignited the debate over security versus privacy: whether technology companies need to build “back doors” that let government in when they need critical information. The response from the techs? A resounding No!

Apple CEO Tim Cook told NPR last month that “if you have an open door in your software for the good guys, the bad guys get in there too. I don’t support a back door for any government, ever.”

The co-founder of secure messaging app Telegram, Pavel Durov, echoed that thought. “Ultimately the ISIS will always find a find a way to communicate within themselves. And if any means of communication turns out to be not secure for them, then they switch to another one. I still think we are doing the right thing—protecting our users’ privacy.”

Terrorists can build their own securely encrypted communication tools. They will switch to newer or older technology to circumvent law enforcement. French authorities confiscated at least one PlayStation 4 video console from one of the attacker’s belongings. PlayStation isn’t encrypting communication but it does make it difficult for authorities to monitor in-game methods of communication such as chats via the headset in private game sessions or writing messages via in-game functions.

Tech companies and privacy advocates argue that the government doesn’t need encryption back doors to carry out terrorism surveillance. The debate is far from over. Some think the Paris attacks may be used to scare people to weaken encryption. Others profess that terrorists are able to organize acts of mass murder as a direct consequence of the public’s dislike of government mass surveillance. While most would agree, however, that the government does need tools to prevent future attacks, should those tools come at the expense of online commerce and keeping people safe? What do you think?

Lever, Rob. “Attacks Revive Debate on Encryption, Surveillance.” Attacks Revive Debate on Encryption, Surveillance . Phys.Org, 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

Lomas, Natasha. “Encryption Is Being Scapegoated To Mask The Failures Of Mass Surveillance.” TechCrunch . N.p., 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

The post Paris Attacks Reignite Debate Over Security Vs. Privacy appeared first on Barefoot Professional Investigations.