A recurring conflict between Silicon Valley and several governments is primarily about "end-to-end encryption," "backdoors," and "client-side scanning," which appear to be complex issues. However, in its simplest form, this issue boils down to the question: should technology companies be allowed to read people's messages?
In the last few years, this fundamental dispute has rumbled. With such a platform, you can chat with others using popular platforms such as WhatsApp, iMessage, Android Messages, and Signal. These platforms offer end-to-end encryption to ensure your privacy.
In response to a potential landmark law being considered by the UK government, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg is on a collision course with the UK government. This is over his continued plans to build ultra-secure messaging into all his apps despite a ban. Various governments around the world are closely watching the showdown to see who blinks first as they oppose popular technology as well.
The biggest argument in technology, the argument about End-to-End encryption, backdoors, and client-side scanning, seems very complicated right now. There is, however, a simple question to answer to determine the outcome. What are the consequences of technology companies reading text messages?
The crux of this disagreement has been brewing in Silicon Valley for years. It continues to have repercussions across the globe involving at least a dozen nations. There are several end-to-end encryption services in the market including WhatsApp, iMessage, Android Messages, and Signal.
This technology means that only the person sending the message, at one end, and the person receiving the message, at the other end, will be able to see, hear, and read the messages. There is no access to the content for anyone but the app makers.
Messages are encrypted and decrypted using cryptographic keys stored on endpoints that are configured to handle them. Encryption is based on public key technology, which is very secure.
Personalized, or asymmetric, encryption is composed of a private key and a public key shared with others. Upon sharing the public key, others can use the private key to encrypt a message and send it to the private key owner. Decrypting the message with the corresponding private key involves using the decryption key.
Almost always, when two parties involved in an exchange communicate online, an intermediary is entrusted with the task of handling the messages between the two parties. There are usually a variety of intermediaries including servers that belong to ISPs, telecom companies, or a variety of other companies that serve as mediators.
Using a public key infrastructure such as E2EE's, intermediaries are unable to intercept messages that are sent between parties.
It is recommended to embed the public key within a certificate digitally certified by a recognized certificate authority (CA) to ensure that a public key is a legitimate key created by a legitimate recipient. It can be assumed that a certificate signed by that public key is authentic since its distribution and knowledge of the public key is widespread; the legitimacy of a certificate signed by the public key can be relied upon.
There might be a case in which the CA would reject a certificate that has a different public key associated with the same name as the one associated with the recipient since the certificate identifies the recipient's name and public key.
It is imperative to note that a system that provides end-to-end encryption ensures that only the parties involved in sending and receiving messages, media, and phone calls can access the content, including app developers. Governments and security agencies reluctantly accepted the rise of these encrypted apps as they gained immense popularity and became increasingly popular. The fact that end-to-end encryption was not the standard for Messenger and Instagram arose four years ago when Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, announced plans to implement it in their applications.
Having launched this ambitious project back in 2012, Meta has been diligently working on it ever since. However, there are insufficient details regarding the project progress and the switchover timeline. There have been growing concerns, leading to requests to halt the switchover or create safeguards to protect consumers. As well, law enforcement agencies such as Interpol, in several countries have expressed concerns about the technology. These countries include the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, India, Turkey, Japan, and Brazil.
One of the most noticeable attempts to address this issue is the proposed Online Safety Bill in the UK. The paper suggests that technology companies must be encouraged to include backdoors in their systems that allow them to scan messages for illegal content. Even though this bill has sparked debates over the balance between privacy and security, it remains in the bill. There is no doubt that governments and law enforcement agencies believe that accessing message content is crucial for convicting criminals and protecting children from online grooming. However, opponents assert that end-to-end encryption is critical for maintaining privacy and safety online.
A recent survey conducted by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) revealed that 73% of the UK public believe that technology companies should have the legal obligation to scan private messages for child sexual abuse when they are in an end-to-end encrypted environment, according to the study conducted by YouGov. The Research Crime and Security Initiative has voiced concerns that the Online Safety Bill could have detrimental effects on end-to-end encryption, undermining privacy guarantees and setting the stage for citizen surveillance by repressive regimes to become more common.
Adding to the discussion, WhatsApp and Signal have both announced that they will withdraw their services from the UK if security is compromised in favor of end-to-end encryption. It is thought that this may be their way of expressing their commitment to end-end encryption. The discussion about end-to-end encryption in Twitter messages was further sparked by Elon Musk's announcement of his plans to integrate it directly into the system.
Although implementing end-to-end encryption is a complex process and a significant financial undertaking, technology companies view it as necessary to regain users' trust after several high-profile data breaches. As a result of this encryption, it becomes much harder to monitor content users share with others, which makes content moderation more challenging.
There is a continuing debate between governments, privacy organizations, and tech companies regarding the ethical and legal ramifications of end-to-end encryption while negotiating a careful balance between privacy, security, and online abuses.
Big Switchover
End-to-end encrypted apps have grown in the last ten years as billions of people use them every day, making them one of the fastest-growing app categories. Law enforcement officers will likely lose out on one of their most critical sources of evidence if they cannot ask Meta for people's messages in the future.
The government and security agencies were slow to accept that end-to-end encryption would, as a standard, be implemented in the Messenger and Instagram apps. This was until Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced four years ago that apps would transition to end-to-end encryption.
End-to-end: Undermines Privacy
In another letter published on Wednesday, 68 prominent defense and privacy researchers expressed their dissatisfaction with the Online Safety Bill for breaking end-to-end encryption, which shows the passion on both sides of this debate.
As a result of the law, experts say tech firms cannot implement safety measures to prevent children from being harmed. However, they can maintain user privacy.
Rebuilding Trust
Despite this, WhatsApp and Signal have made it clear that they are strongly opposed to any compromise to the security of end-to-end encryption in the UK.
Announcing in May that Elon Musk was incorporating end-to-end encryption into Twitter messages was not only a worry for those who criticize the technology but also compounded the problem for those who criticize it.
A meta-analysis shows that switching to technology is one of the most challenging decisions companies have to make, but it is worth it in the end.
After years of data scandals, big tech organizations feel regaining customers' trust in their services is the key to regaining customers' confidence.
