Specifying a principle of cryptographic justice as a response to the problem of going dark

Author:

Wilson MichaelORCID

Abstract

AbstractOver the past decade, the Five Eyes Intelligence community has argued cryptosystems with end-to-end encryption (E2EE) are disrupting the acquisition and analysis of digital evidence. They have labelled this phenomenon the ‘problem of going dark’. Consequently, several jurisdictions have passed ‘responsible encryption’ laws that limit access to E2EE. Based upon a rhetorical analysis (Cunningham in Understanding rhetoric: a guide to critical reading and argumentation, BrownWalker Press, Boca Raton, 2018) of official statements about ‘going dark’, it is argued there is a need for a domain-specific principle of cryptographic justice to reorient the debate away from competing technocratic claims about the necessity, proportionality, and accountability of digital surveillance programs. This article therefore specifies a principle of cryptographic justice by adapting more general norms of information justice to decision-making about encryption law and policy. The resulting principle is that encryption laws and policies should be designed to empower the comparatively powerless to protect themselves from domination (i.e., morally arbitrary forms of surveillance). It is argued this principle can reorient decision-making about encryption law and policy towards consideration of how cryptography impacts systems-level power dynamics within information societies.

Funder

Murdoch University

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications

Reference143 articles.

1. Abelson, H., Anderson, R., Bellovin, S. M., Benaloh, J., Blaze, M., Diffie, W., “Whit,” Gilmore, J., Green, M., Landau, S., Neumann, P. G., Rivest, R. L., Schiller, J. I., Schneier, B., Specter, M. A., & Weitzner, D. J. (2015). Keys under doormats. Communications of the ACM, 58(10), 24–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/2814825.

2. Adam, L., & Barns, G. (2020). Digital strip searches in Australia: A threat to the privilege against self-incrimination. Alternative Law Journal, 45(3), 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X20923073.

3. American Civil Liberties Union (2015). Encryption is not a problem to be solved, but a crucial tool for freedom and security.  https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/aclu-un-encryption-not-problem-be-solved-crucial-tool-freedom-and-security.

4. Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2014). Preventive justice. Oxford University Press.

5. Australian Department of Home Affairs (2018). Submission to Parliamentary Inquiry into the Telecommunicatons and Other legislation (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018.  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018/Submissions

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3