Stakeholder/Genre Analysis

Pedrhom Nafisi

Dr. Taylor

ENC 1102

Stakeholder Analysis

            The encryption debate involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Apple is a huge ongoing issue that can potentially affect every single person in America that uses the internet and stores data on huge public server computers such as “the Cloud”. This debate also includes the current discussion involving the legality of encryption and whether or not big technology companies should be allowed to use it as a security measure. Encryption is used everywhere, from mobile application based text messaging such as Snapchat and iMessage, to banks that encrypt user data to protect their information and money from cyber attackers. If encryption was to end up becoming outlawed, new security measures would have to be instantly created by all technology using companies since protecting their consumer’s privacy and data is crucial. Since the issue is on a national to almost global scale everyone is impacted by the results of the debate and the scary part is that not many people can make a difference on this matter since it is conflict between big organizations. Currently there is a bill that is only a draft at the moment called the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016. This bill directly attacks end-to-end encryption as it requires people to comply with any court order that asks for data, and if the seized data is unintelligible, then legislation can demand for it to become intelligible. Also there is an increasing amount of discourse occurring on the topic of encryption between government officials and big electronic companies beyond just the Apple vs. FBI case. The United Kingdom has actually created a ban proposal that would remove end-to-end encryption from being used.  Due to the expansion of encryption as an issue, it would not be surprising to see an official ban proposal to be created in the near future. These factors result in the biggest stakeholders of this issue to be law enforcement agencies, immense technology producing companies, and all government officials that could possibly effect the legality of encryption.

            Federal law enforcement agencies play the largest role in the entire encryption debate and are the biggest stakeholder group because they are the ones that labeled encryption as an issue in the first place. Their justification is that encryption allows terrorists and criminals to communicate without the possibility of law enforcement of discovering what is being said. What law enforcement does not understand however is how crucial the concept of encryption is in today’s society. There is no better digital security than encryption and even law enforcement agencies use encryption themselves to keep their money and profiles safe. Just because it has the potential to be used maliciously does not mean it should be banned when there is no better alternative. In the Apple vs. FBI court case, the FBI wants to force Apple to create an updated operating system for iPhones that allows law enforcement agencies to have access to a backdoor in order to retrieve information from any iPhone. My research has shown that if this backdoor was to be implemented, it is extremely possible for a criminal to discover how to use the backdoor for themselves. If this happens then every iPhone user will have their information compromised and so cyber-attacks could occur to every single person that is a consumer of Apple products. I understand that law enforcement agencies want to protect citizens from people that want to cause harm to others, but banning encryption is definitely not the correct path towards a safer future for all. If federal law enforcement agencies other than the FBI understand my findings and realize that creating a backdoor creates more safety issues than it solves, they could support Apple in the Apple vs. FBI case which would allow encryption to be one step closer to being deemed as an important security measure that is required for everyone.

            Another stakeholder in regards to encryption is the opposing side to the law enforcement agencies, which are technology companies that create hardware and software that incorporates encryption. Any company that creates or uses electronic devices that record consumer information such as Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon and any other big name brand want to insure the customer that their product keeps their data as safe as possible from threats. If encryption is banned or they are forced to create backdoors in their security software, then a lot of negative consequences would occur. Firstly these companies would have to make their products specifically designed to fit the United States government’s desires, while keeping full encryption on phones sold to anywhere else in the world. This would cause America’s internet security to be the lowest in the world and would force companies to make alternate inferior version of their existing products. If a criminal wanted to secure data behind the government’s eyes, they would simply use a phone from a different country since it does not matter to them that they are breaking the law. With the all information I have gathered that proves encryption is required in today’s society, electronic companies can use this information to support Apple in the encryption debate and talk with government officials to promote the idea that encryption must stay as long as there is no better security option. If technology companies do not stand up to the government, then they will suffer the same fate as Apple and would be forced to create inferior products just so the government has the potential to spy on people. The companies would have to spend tons of money engineering an inferior product that is secure but not too secure for the government. No company wants to waste money doing that and so as a very important stakeholder, they must use this research to prove to the government that reducing the power of encryption is not viable.

            Lastly, the most influential stakeholder of the encryption debate are the government officials and court justices who have the final say in whether or not encryption should be weakened as a security measure. They are stakeholders because the government officials are supposed to represent the people of America and make decisions for the greater good. Encryption affects every single American in this era, and government officials want what is best for the country on any issue. For this reason government officials have a huge interest in regards to the security of the people they represent. They must fully understand what the positive and negative consequences their decision will make on America, and my research has shown that weakening encryption is an overall negative consequence. It is correct that having access to more information as the government can potentially prevent criminal and terrorist activity before it happens, but it is not worth it at the cost of jeopardizing every single American’s privacy and information. With my research, government officials can create a fair and balanced stance on the discussion and issue their opinions based on correct facts that show encryption has more benefits than drawbacks.

            If I was able to reach the impactful minds that make up law enforcement agencies, technology companies, and government officials then I will be triumphant in convincing them that action must be taken in order to preserve the power of encryption. As a simple citizen, I currently do not have any power to directly make a difference in the encryption debate as that all depends on the support Apple gets and what the government decides is the correct decision. If I was able to inform these stakeholders how impactful their actions will be in regards to digital security, then I would be successful in protecting encryption with all the information I have gathered. People are only afraid of encryption because they are ignorant of all the positives it has, and blaming it as a primary reason for why the government cannot crack down on criminals is false.

Genre Analysis

How to Open the Ears of the Stakeholders

            There are thousands of technology companies around the world that sell electronic products to millions of consumers on a global scale. On top of that, government officials are also paying attention to every other issue that is currently present in the United States and law enforcement agencies are constantly busy trying to crack down on criminals and find intelligence that will bring America to a safer place. With all these stakeholders being such large organizations that impact many different topics, how am I able to shed light on such a specific topic as encryption? If is obvious that I simply cannot just send an e-mail to Samsung and hope that they suddenly take action against the ongoing encryption debate. What I need to do, is find smaller organizations that fight for the same cause as I am. Although there is not a specific group that wants to protect encryption, there definitely are a ton of organizations that fight for internet privacy and since encryption falls under that category they definitely would help advocate a safer digital world.

The Organizations That Would Support Encryption

            Encryption being targeted as a reason for why criminals and terrorists can thrive is only a very recent ideology that is held mostly by those ignorant to all the things encryption does. This primarily includes the older generation that has the most power while simultaneously knows the least about how internet security works. Encryption is being labeled as something it is not, and so I must get the word out with the information I have gathered proving that encryption needs to stay. The encryption debate is not going to last forever and if the FBI succeeds in forcing Apple to create a backdoor in their software, then we the people must stop encryption from being weakened any further. Luckily, there are organizations out there that share the same view as me and have the power to put out information for the public and all the big stakeholders that I listed. One of these organizations includes the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), founded in 1994 this non-profit organization is a public research center in Washington D.C. that focuses on getting the public’s attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues in regard to the information age.

            My objective is to influence government officials who have the final say in the law as they are the stakeholder with the most power in protecting encryption. The encryption debate includes law enforcement agencies and giant technology companies, so they already have turned their heads to this issue and have asserted their stance on one side or the other. Since the encryption debate is a court case the public does not have too much direct power in influencing the final result of whether a backdoor is created or not; however, to prevent any further harm to encryption and digital security we the people must let government officials know our stance on this issue. Influencing political powers is something that is achieved in numbers and so using organizations such as EPIC to spread the word of how important encryption is can cause a flurry of people to contact their senators and political representatives. This action is to make sure that if any proposal comes up that targets encryption that the people with political power understand what the majority’s stance is on the issue.

            On top of contacting and collaborating with EPIC, I can contact the International Information System Security Certification Consortium (ISC)² which is the largest not-for-profit organization that addresses cyber security. Upon looking at their blogs and social media feed, this organization has not been talking about the encryption debate at all. This organization focuses more on certifying individuals as cyber agents, but they also have blogs and articles that talks about the current state of cyber security. If I can emphasize the importance of the encryption debate and the draft of the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 with this organization, then they could help spread the word.

How to Contact the Organizations

            Since EPIC is an organization that resides in Washington D.C., I cannot simply just go to their main office and request a meeting to emphasize the importance of spreading the news and knowledge about encryption. What I can do however is contact them through their website. They have a “Contact EPIC” section on their website and from there I can try in get in touch with any representative of EPIC. Once I am able to reach contact with EPIC, I will present a list of facts on why the encryption issue must be stressed more and be publicized as much as possible. This includes all of the negative impacts that creating a backdoor in encryption creates and then talk about the draft of the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 since these are both issues that are currently going on and with no action will go under the radar of most citizens. I would hope that my actions would make EPIC create more articles regarding the encryption issues because upon looking at their top stories, the encryption debate and the newly created bill draft isn’t stressed enough. On top of that I would hope EPIC would broadcast how critical the encryption situation is on social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook to raise more awareness to the public eye where people could share the news with their peers and spread the news. EPIC also could stress the fact to contact their senators and representatives to vote against the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016.

            In regards to (ISC)², their organization is a little different as they are a team of certified cyber agents that work for companies all over the world. Similar to EPIC, they have a contact information page with phone numbers and multiple email addresses. By contacting them through these means, I could fully stress the point on how crucial it is to act now to save encryption as we know it. From there, (ISC)² can spread the information about the debate and the bill to all of their members. Since the members of (ISC)² are part of big technology organizations around the world, this ties in another major stakeholder of the encryption debate along with spreading the word about contacting their politicians.

What Am I Presenting

I think the best way to present myself to these organizations and express the urgency of protecting encryption is by making a list of consequences that creating a backdoor or banning end-to-end encryption creates. This is because the cold hard facts is what makes this whole situation dire. Every single citizen is in this information age is affected by encryption, regardless of whether or not a person knows how impactful encryption truly is. This fact alone is very scary and the people have the right to know and understand what is happening within the digital security world. This list could also briefly in the beginning explain what encryption is and how it is affecting every person that uses the internet. A good analogy I could use to help summarize what is happening to those who cannot grasp the concept of encryption is that it is similar to the government banning the ability to lock your door so that the police can come inside whenever they want to make sure you’re are not a terrorist. Such a world is obviously not safer but that is exactly what is happening if encryption is banned. The list would help educate those who do not know what encryption, while inform those who know what it is on why we the people need to act now and fight the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016.

The Goal and Beyond

            The target of all of my efforts is government officials and any individual that is a senator or part of the House of Representatives. I alone cannot change the fate of encryption and inform the uninformed on how the United States is likely about to become a whole lot less secure. With the help of EPIC and (ISC)² I can spread the word of encryption to as many people as possible and tell them that if they care about their safety, they need to contact their politician that can vote to repeal the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 and put an end to blaming encryption for the evil deeds of criminals and terrorists. These organizations can also spread the word themselves to other organizations with a similar stance on this issue and hopefully from there is an exponential growth in the amount of people understanding what encryption is and how the United States will change if it is banned.