Encrypting Democracy

The recent political turmoil in North Africa and elsewhere is a prime example of how technology is invading our lives and the ways we communicate with each other. The adoption of internet technologies such as twitter, facebook as well as smartphone communications by protesters to organise themselves and the immediate reaction of some governments to try and shut down all electronic communications in an effort to disrupt communications between protesters is evidence of this.

The use of encrypted communications however has left some governments unprepared. Encryption technology allows users to send messages which can only be read by the recipient. Unlike text messages, which can be easily read unencrypted as soon as they arrive to a mobile repeater tower, encrypted messaging or emails are a much tougher nut to crack. Egyptian protesters made successful use of the Stellar encryption provided by blackberry devices in order to escape their government's communications crackdown with the outside world. This Blackberry technology has also during the past months been the centre of a focused campaign launched by a number of countries in order to request Research in Motion (RIM) , the creators of Blackberry, to give them the tools to be able to read such encrypted messages.

The concept of encryption is as old as language itself. Back in the third millennium BC the ancient Sumerians were already using encryption to ensure that their cuneiform writings, in the form of clay tablets, were rendered secure. The mashing of technology and encryption became most evident though in the last century. If it was not for the geeks at Bletchley Park who managed to decipher the Nazi Enigma machine, the Second World War would have had a more different outcome starting from the battle of the Atlantic to the Allies' first victories in North Africa.

The Cold War brought with it new realities and new reasons for encryption. If you wanted proper control on your ballistic and intercontinental missile arsenal and their launching sites you needed to ensure that the other super-power could not read the messages being sent to the missile silos or nuclear subs prowling the Artic. Encryption technology had become as military as weapons of mass destruction. It was in this context that we saw the promulgation of international legal statutes such as the Wassennaar Arrangement in the late 70s and early 80s in order to curb the exportation and use of encryption technologies. Encryption was recognised as a Dual-Use technology meaning that it could either ensure that your emails were secure but it could also be the most important key to launch Armageddon. It had to be somehow controlled.

The fall of the Berlin Wall changed this reality. The successful introduction of the World Wide Web and the mass adoption of internet for non-military purposes also changed the landscape. It was only if electronic communications could fulfil the notions of confidentiality, integrity and non-reputability that electronic commerce and the adoption of electronic communications in the corporate environment could be ensured and encryption was a pretty good solution for that.

Encryption became affordable and broadly available. It did not remain in government and military spheres. Everyone could make avail of this technology to protect and secure their own communications, whether these were of a personal or corporate nature. Laws were relaxed to the benefit of electronic commerce and electronic communications. It was only a matter of time that this technology would end up on our smartphones.

We are now experiencing however a reversal of fortunes. The relaxation of technology meant that such technology could be used by the masses. But does this mean that we should not have a right to encrypt our messages?

The recent tiffs between RIM and the Indian Government shed light on the fact that we might well wave goodbye to our privacy. Making direct reference to the fact that the 2008 Mumbai attacks were organised through the use of mobile and satellite phone technology which the governments could not decrypt, the Indian Government has now been requesting RIM to give them access to the encryption technology used on their Blackberry devices or else ban the use of these devices altogether. Following a lot of discussions, RIM agreed to grant the Indian Government access to this technology. The hitch is that RIM can only provide access to personal devices which route messaging though RIM's central servers and not emails and messages being sent through corporate networks running on Blackberry's Enterprise Server, claiming that not even RIM would have access to such encrypted messages. The stand-off continues.

India was not the only state crossing swords with RIM. Countries such as Algeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia have all called on RIM to give them access to their encryption technology claiming national security concerns. In most cases, RIM gave in.

It is very difficult to equate the free use of technology with national security. The balance that one seeks to achieve is surely not an easy one. We should have a right to our privacy and if encryption allows us to protect our privacy we should have the right to make use of it without fears of interception. Alternatively, states should have the ability to keep terrorism on check. Who will decide? Should it be states who are trying to retain control of their population fearing unrest and revolutions seeking democracy? Surely, any attempt to grant such powers to EU government in order to be able to read encrypted messages of their citizens will be faced with a big fight against generally accepted data protection values. Unfortunately, many states in which the present protests are unfolding to not have that luxury called data protection legislation. Western states might have the luxury of claiming that 'privacy is dead', our neighbours can only accept a reality were privacy was never even born.