Jessica Colby
Liberty Itch
Imagine a world where the government required all houses to have a ‘secret’ door, just for them. You can hide it behind some bushes or a tree, but it must be easily accessible to government officials, either unlocked or with limited security, so the government can use it any time in case you are doing something wrong.
Any reasonable person would recognise this as not just an invasion of privacy but a security risk that would allow criminals and other bad actors to access your home. Especially since everyone would know that all houses have one of these backdoors somewhere.
Yet when it comes to the online world, the mentality is not quite the same. Proposals requiring access to your online life have become increasingly common, in the form of anti-encryption legislation and digital back door access. Whether it is the recently passed legislation (Online Safety Act 2023) in the UK or proposals in Sweden and the European Union, governments around the world are demanding an end to encryption and the creation of digital backdoors to access your online life under the guise of public safety.
As with literal backdoors, it is not just governments that will be able to use digital backdoors. Criminals, corporations, and those with nefarious intent can as well.
In 2017, a cyberattack known as the WannaCry Ransomware affected at least 300,000 computers across 150 countries. The hackers were enabled by a fault in the Windows Operating System that was known to the American National Security Agency but not reported to Microsoft. Although this does not involve a government mandated digital backdoor, it still demonstrates the potential risks of requiring vulnerabilities in software.
Digital backdoors must be recognised as a threat to your privacy, security and, most importantly, freedom.
Legal requirements for digital backdoors and anti-encryption have the potential to negatively affect the internet, with many websites and apps using encryption to aid both security and functionality. This includes any service where data is transmitted, such as email and financial transactions, on your phone or computer. The https:// that you commonly see at the beginning of web addresses is a form of encryption that protects you and the website from cyberattacks and spying every time you visit a website.
There is also the matter of privacy. This type of legislation has the potential to end internet privacy, which government authorities consider to be a good thing. ‘Anonymity is not a fundamental right’ was the response of Europol chief Catherine De Bolle.
I found this rather ironic since some European countries criminalise filming people in public and even the dissemination of legally acquired information under the guise of privacy. People can commit horrific crimes, and the government will enforce their anonymity, yet the government wants to monitor those who have done nothing wrong.
I would argue that internet anonymity should be a fundamental right and protected. Anonymity gives people the ability to more openly discuss ideas that are either controversial or carry a stigma; for example, a person with HIV wanting to ask for advice without revealing their identity to others, or people wishing to openly discuss political matters or criticise the government without backlash.
Eliminating internet anonymity will have a chilling effect on these activities. It puts people at a higher risk of being targeted under authoritarian government policies, such as the increasing restrictions on freedom of expression in England and Europe which have led to people being arrested for criticising politicians and government policies.
As for the argument of ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’, this is simply not true. Innocent people get arrested all the time and some even go to prison. For example, at one point the whole country was convinced that Lindy Chamberlain killed her child before it was shown that a dingo did it. She was totally innocent but was still convicted of a crime she didn’t commit.
What is even worse is proposals to not just break encryption but to allow active monitoring of private conversations. For example, the EU is currently trying to pass a law that would require AI monitoring of private conversations to scan for child sexual abuse material. This is not just a massive invasion of privacy, it is a nightmare scenario.
This type of legislation has the potential to end internet privacy, which government authorities consider to be a good thing.
Contrary to popular belief, AI is far from perfect and makes a lot of mistakes. There have already been instances of AI misidentifying people for crimes they did not commit. These people end up being guilty until proven innocent and have their lives needlessly changed for the worse.
There was also the time I tried to sell a toy snake on Facebook Marketplace which Facebook AI misidentified as a real snake. I requested a review, but nothing happened. After that, I decided to keep my too-realistic toy snake. Here is a screenshot I took of this bizarre situation below:
Under the proposed EU legislation, I could easily see a range of innocent photos such as baby bath photos or teenagers at the beach being misidentified by AI as child sexual abuse material leading to the arrests of many innocent people. If such legislation is passed, it will likely be expanded to target political material as well.
Given this, it is important to oppose government efforts to break encryption: it is a matter of individual freedom and a practical necessity for the internet in its current form. Digital backdoors must be recognised as a threat to your privacy, security and, most importantly, freedom.
This article was originally published by Liberty Itch.
