How journalists should reframe the encryption debate

[Commentary] Governments are most concerned with preventing “bad guys” from using encryption to hide evidence. But many journalists, some of whom have been prosthelytizing for encryption as a reporting tool for years, dislike the message they’re hearing from public officials. The challenge is to turn the “bad guy” narrative into a wider discussion of the legitimate, beneficial uses of encryption.

In an attempt to win a major ally in that fight, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press announced they had submitted a joint letter to the United Nations, arguing that reporters must be able to “use encryption to protect themselves, their sources, and the free flow of news.” The letter was sent in response to a call for submissions by David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, who is writing a report on “the legal framework governing the relationship between freedom of expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions and communications.” Kaye said he hopes to do for encryption what a report by his predecessor at the UN, released about a month before the first Snowden revelations, did for the understanding of mass surveillance.

Geoffrey King, the Internet advocacy coordinator for CPJ who helped draft the letter to the UN, said that framework needs to urge nations to recognize encryption as a tool for protecting journalists, activists, and other vulnerable groups. Kaye said he understands why journalists are concerned to hear the way intelligence officials are framing the encryption debate. He hopes his report -- due to be presented to the UN Human Rights Council in June -- will provide countries with a road map for making the hard choices necessary to fully accept encryption.

[Kelly O'Brien is a freelance journalist based in Boston]