Mass use of encrypted messaging apps doesn’t hamper security: Harvard study

Mass use of encrypted messaging apps doesn’t hamper security: Harvard study

 DELHI: Sending text messages securely doesn't require advanced technical expertise anymore. Apps like Telegram, Signal, Surespot, etc -- some of which have been reportedly used by ISIS operatives too -- have made it as easy as downloading an app and going about business as usual. But does a growing uptake of encryption by the masses hinder the job of investigating agencies? A recent study from Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society says, no.

There has been an increased awareness of online security tools among lay persons in the post-Snowden era. Berlin-based encrypted messaging app Telegram, for example, has over 50 million downloads on Google Play Store alone. Signal, another secure messaging and calling app has over 1 million downloads on Android. These provide end-to-end encryption for messages sent over their network. This means, that the message is as good as under lock and key as it travels from sender to recipient, difficult or impossible to intercept by anyone except the person receiving the message on their own device. Apple's iMessage, which does exactly this on the iPhone, has been a point of contention between the Cupertino-based tech giant and the US government when it comes to surveillance.

Apple has resisted the The US Federal Bureau of Investigation's requests to access the contents of messages shared through the app since early 2015. The FBI argued it needed that data for effective policing, while Apple reasoned that the nature of the encryption was such that a "backdoor" for government access would defeat the purpose, and compromise privacy of its users. The conflict has only intensified after Apple once again resisted FBI's efforts to disable a security feature to unlock an iPhone for the investigation of a terror attack by ISIS sympathisers in San Bernardino.

This isn't the first time the FBI raised concerns about encryption. Back in 2010, its then counsel general Valerie Caproni had expressed apprehensions about law enforcement "going dark" or drawing a blank with lawful surveillance tactics because of these new communication channels. The Harvard study released earlier in February, titled "Don't Panic: Making Progress on the Going Dark debate", cites numerous factors to state the opposite. Chief among these are: the financial unfeasibility of internet companies offering end-to-end encryption of messages on their platform, the growing use of the "internet of things," and the non-encryption of metadata.