Restricting Encryption Would Not Have Prevented the Paris Attacks

[Commentary] Security experts, digital-privacy advocates, and tech companies have pushed back against claims by FBI director James Comey and other encryption-phobic officials who say that with encrypted messaging increasingly available to the average consumer, law enforcement and intelligence officials can no longer easily eavesdrop on private communications between persons of interest. The digital-privacy advocates are warning that carving out access to encrypted communication for law enforcement would compromise the security that underpins much of what happens on the Internet every day. And for now, it’s not yet clear that the Paris attackers used encrypted messaging.

Apparently, a US official said that the mode of communication the attackers used remains unknown. More importantly, encryption is not just a tool for scheming and plotting. Strong encryption is essential to much of what the average Internet user does, whether it's texting on iMessage or WhatsApp, banking online, or shopping for a new pair of shoes. Without it, a hacker could more easily snag sensitive information in transit, like personal correspondence or bank information. If encryption were weakened, in the way that a proposed law in the United Kingdom requires, it would keep online security out of the hands of ordinary tech users, while barely posing an obstacle to those who use it to guard dangerous secrets. Indeed, it's not clear that undermining strong encryption would do anything to prevent terrorism.