Interpol Confirms, Denies It's Against Strong Encryption

The latest law enforcement agency to offer up its opinion on end-to-end encryption doesn't seem to like it either. Joseph Menn reports for Reuters that Interpol is siding with the FBI, DOJ, and a handful of European government agencies in finding that encryption is bad and lets bad people do bad things.

The international police organization Interpol plans to condemn the spread of strong encryption in a statement Monday saying it protects child sex predators, three people briefed on the matter told Reuters.

At the group's conference in Lyon, France on Friday, an Interpol official said a version of the resolution introduced by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation would be released without a formal vote by representatives of the roughly 60 countries in attendance, the sources said.

This follows the anti-encryption agitating performed by Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Chris Wray in response to Facebook's announcement it would add end-to-end encryption to its Messenger service, bringing it more in line with Whatsapp, another of Facebook's acquisitions. Both used the specter of child exploitation to argue against this implementation -- an effort to sacrifice the security of millions for some slight gains in law enforcement efficiency.

Sean Gallagher of Ars Technica obtained a draft copy of the resolution, which adds more redundancy to earlier "think of the children" arguments.

The current path towards default end-to-end encryption, with no provision for lawful access, does not allow for the protection of the world's children from sexual exploitation. Technology providers must act and design their services in a way that protects user privacy, on the one hand, while providing user safety, on the other hand. Failure to allow for Lawful Access on their platforms and products, provides a safe haven to offenders utilizing these to sexually exploit children, and inhibits our global law enforcement efforts to protect children.

Encryption does not "provide safe havens" for child abusers. This is Interpol's version of AG Barr's "lawless spaces" assertions, which doesn't improve at all on Barr's fatuous statements. As former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker recently pointed out, Barr's argument isn't about where the law is being circumvented, but rather about how he doesn't like the way relevant laws work.

So, encryption has not, as the attorney general complained in his speech, really created a "law free zone." It's just that the law that applies in this area is not what Barr or the Justice Department want the law to be.

Interpol could not be reached for comment in time for publication but it sure had a lot to say about the issue now that its apparent stance on encryption has been made public. It told the New York Times' Nicole Peroth the Reuters story was inaccurate.

Interpol telling me this Reuter's story is inaccurate:

Dear Ms Perlroth,

As per our statement there are, and were, no plans at this time for the INTERPOL General Secretariat to issue a statement in relation to encryption.

Regards,
Press Officehttps://t.co/EItFe0D3Je

- Nicole Perlroth (@nicoleperlroth) November 18, 2019

If you can't read/see the tweet, it says:

Dear Ms Perlroth,

As per our statement there are, and were, no plans at this time for the INTERPOL General Secretariat to issue a statement in relation to encryption.

This contradicts statements made by conference attendees, who said Interpol's resolution/statement was "due to be published this week." Perhaps Interpol has undergone some hasty reconsideration after reading its own words on the pages of multiple press sites. Or maybe the timetable is off. All Interpol is really saying is that it won't be issuing this "at this time." This isn't a rejection of these articles' substance. It appears to be nothing more than a dispute about when Interpol will take a public stance against encryption.

Or maybe it has decided to let the 60 representatives from countries Interpol serves actually vote on the resolution. This would be a far better route than issuing a resolution unilaterally declaring opposition to encryption that many members may not actually support.

Whatever the case, Interpol's suggestion that encryption's main beneficiary is international crime is shortsighted and selfish. It's also dangerous. In a world filled with cyberthreats, efforts to undermine encryption "for the good of the public" won't actually result in the public being better served. It certainly won't make them any better protected.