Technology, Terrorism and the First Amendment

Originally published by Gary Shapiro on LinkedIn: Technology, Terrorism and the First Amendment

We all can recall the images of countless flyers and pictures of the missing posted in New York – families desperate to locate missing loved ones in the days and weeks after the towers fell.

Contrast that to the immediacy that social media offered last year after the Paris attacks. Through Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat, friends and families could connect instantly – from virtually anywhere in the world – to get updates and assurances from those they knew who were in Paris at the time.

Tech companies recognize their implicit value in emergencies, and are actively finding ways to help. Immediately after last month’s terrorist bombings in Brussels, Facebook enabled its Safety Check feature, which let people alert friends and family that they were safe. Uber suspended surge pricing in and around the city. And Airbnb launched a free accommodation program for stranded travelers

While it is a tremendous resource, the Internet raises new security challenges. Our national business and government leaders have focused their energies on protecting our financial, transportation, water and electrical infrastructures from potential terrorist attacks. Cyber-risks to these systems remain real and potentially even more devastating. Every day, incursions from totalitarian countries hit our government IT structures, business networks, and even personal devices. They probe, gather information, implant viruses, and install parallel Web-tracking programs and perhaps even “sleeper” programs.

Our government is struggling to protect itself from cyber-attacks, while also protecting free speech and preventing the online enabling of terrorist activity. The recent exposure of more than 22 million government personnel records underscores just how difficult it is to protect our digital data.

At the same time, legal threats to Internet freedom in America are getting more serious. The FBI is pushing to compel Apple to hack its own devices and create a back door for law enforcement to access our data. Ostensibly, this was about one device – the phone that was used in the San Bernardino shooting. But the FBI has other demands involving other phones and even other tech companies. Granting government power to force companies to build back doors is unprecedented and we fear it opens a Pandora’s Box as it weakens security standards that could be exploited by the very people from whom our government seeks to protect us.

The real debate, as Sen. Ron Wyden says, is “not about choosing security or choosing privacy. It is about choosing less security or more security.”

Technology companies are and will continue to help governments fight the battle against terrorism – but it should be through innovation. Tech companies will use Big Data and will develop predictive analytics. They will exploit increasingly smart and better sensors, especially those for explosives. These new tools, applications and measures will keep us all safer. That's why CTA stood united with Silicon Valley in supporting Apple in its resistance to creating software which would allow anyone from getting the software to decrypt iPhones.

Thankfully the FBI dropped its case after it figured out a way to get the information it wanted. But the issue by no means disappeared. Last week, a discussion draft of a bill by Sens. Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein surfaced, attempting to address the encryption issue head-on. Unfortunately, the bill – at least in draft form – is dangerously overreaching and technically unsophisticated.

Its broad definitions would enable virtually any federal, state or local government official to demand encrypted information from device makers, software creators, or service providers. Companies would have no opportunity to contest these demands in court.

Techdirt’s Mike Mansick called the bill “insane,” adding “Burr and Feinstein are basically offering a bill that completely undermines the economic prosperity of the American tech industry.”

Kevin Bankston, director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, told WIRED magazine this is “easily the most ludicrous, dangerous, technically illiterate proposal” he’s seen in his career.

This bill would essentially make effective cybersecurity illegal in the United States, pushing companies that take cybersecurity seriously offshore. The anti-encryption mandate would harm our ability to keep high-skill, high-wage jobs in America and carry potential international ramifications that diminish our global competitiveness.

To be clear, if the government wants the authority to access private data in the interest of national security, investigators should turn to Congress, not industry. And in the absence of sane and sensible congressional action, Silicon Valley must protect and promote the responsibility tech companies have to their customers. That means making sure their customers’ data is secure. And they should be able to do this without fear of legal reprisal.

We have to think long term about the benefits and challenges of data sharing. Is it better to create software which bad actors will likely obtain and exploit to compromise the security of our phones?

Our nation is home to the world’s most dominant Internet companies, the freest citizenry, the moral high ground and national consensus and culture on Internet-related issues. Today, our uniquely American culture, education and business environment combined with the underpinning of our Constitution allow us to stay on top in creating the world’s most innovative and creative companies.

But we must continue to strengthen this base and create a national strategy protecting our nation and citizenry — and ensuring the Internet remains a tool for democracy and freedom. That is our challenge. That is our responsibility. And that is the key to our future.

This piece was excerpted from Gary Shapiro’s Media Institute address on April, 13, 2016, in Washington, DC.