Technology Ain't Magic

Towards the end of last year, Apple and Google had announced that the latest versions of iOS and Android (iOS8 and Android L at that point) would be designed such that even Apple and Google themselves couldn’t decrypt the data on your device. This was done to convince the public that law enforcement agencies couldn’t snoop on your data (No, this wasn’t just a claim: it is the way the maths of encryption and decryption works).

If you are wondering whether to trust a claim based on maths you don’t know or understand, well, at least you’re honest about your lack of understanding of the topic. That honesty makes you better than the Washington Post editorial board!

The Washington Post editorial (WaPo for short) starts with a legitimate concern: if nobody but the device owner can decrypt the data, wouldn’t this be a boon for terrorists and criminals? They then acknowledge a valid counter-argument:

“But there are legitimate and valid counter arguments…They say that a compromise isn’t possible, since one crack in encryption — even if for a good actor, like the police — is still a crack that could be exploited by a bad actor.”

And yet, WaPo asks Apple and Google “to create a kind of secure golden key that could unlock encrypted devices, under a court order, when needed”.

Now I am confused: if the counter arguments are “legitimate and valid”, how does WaPo then conclude that a “golden key” can still be provided?

Jon Evans answers my question in this scathing article. The short answer is that the WaPo believes what Arthur C. Clarke once said:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Evans points out the danger of the my-ignorance-makes-it-magic mindset:

“It makes non-engineers begin to believe that technology really can do anything its wizard-engineers desire.”

He quotes security experts who fully agree with the counter argument that WaPo itself cites! And agrees with Elissa Shevinsky who once said:

“We cannot bend software or cryptography to our will. Technology is science, not magic.”

In any case, as Evans correctly says, even if Apple and Google create this “golden key” for law enforcement, it’s like locking the stables after the horses have bolted:

“This kind of magical thinking will still not prevent genuine bad guys from using strong encryption without back doors. That genie is long out of the bottle, widely available, and open-source.”

I think the above points (tech isn’t magic; and the un-decryptable algorithms are already out there for the real bad guys to use anyway) prove why WaPo is, to quote Evans, “breathtakingly dumb”. Evans then looks into the technical knowledge levels of the WaPo editorial board:

“If any of them has the slightest hint of a technical background, their biographies hide it well. And yet they are happy to pontificate stentorian nonsense on a subject where they are effectively illiterate.”

But hey, like in politics, when did ignorance ever prevent the news media from voicing an opinion on topics they don’t understand?