OTI Policy Director Kevin Bankston Offers Ten reasons Why Backdoor Mandates Are a Bad Idea
Tags: 2010s Amendment I Backdoors Cybersecurity Economic Impact Foreign Concerns Going Dark Human Rights OTI Primer SAFE Act Surveillance
Published: April 2015
Abstract: In April 2015, OTI Policy Director Kevin Bankston was schedule to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Information Technology regarding backdoor mandates and potential U.S. policy responses. New America published this blog post, on April 28, 2015, summarizing Bankston’s prepared statement and highlighting the ten key reasons Bankston identified against backdoor mandates. The reasons identified by Bankston were: 1) surveillance backdoors were already rejected as a policy approach two decades ago, including by Congress; 2) it would seriously undermine U.S. cybersecurity; 3) it would cost the American economy untold billions of dollars; 4) it would not succeed at keeping bad actors from using unbreakable encryption; 5) surveillance backdoors are not necessary to keep us safe from criminals—but strong encryption is key; 6) it would undermine—and turn on its head—the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our papers and effects; 7) it would threaten First Amendment rights here and free expression around the world; 8) it would encourage countries with poor human rights records to demand backdoor access of their own; 9) an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives and the President’s own hand-picked advisors have already rejected the idea; and 10) it would be vigorously opposed by a unified Internet community.