Modern field guide to security and privacy

Coalition aims to solve privacy v. national security debate

As the standoff between Apple and the US government over unlocking an iPhone intensifies, the Digital Equilibrium Project is setting out to find the right balance between consumer privacy safeguards and national security interests. 

Carlo Allegri/Reuters
The Apple logo seen behind the clock at Grand Central Terminal in the Manhattan on Feb. 21.

Amid an intensifying nationwide debate over privacy rights, a coalition of technology experts, privacy advocates, and former government officials is setting out to forge a consensus between Washington and the tech sector when it comes balancing consumer security and national security interests.

The Digital Equilibrium Project, announced Tuesday, brings together 15 experts with the aim of finding a framework that protects privacy while also giving law enforcement and intelligence agencies the ability to access the communications of suspected criminals and terrorists. 

The announcement comes as privacy issues have reached the national spotlight since Apple is refusing to help the FBI access an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters. The Silicon Valley tech giant claims that aiding federal agents in this case would irrevocably weaken security for all of its customers

While privacy advocates, civil liberties groups, and tech companies such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter support Apple's stance, the public appears to be siding the FBI. In a Pew Research Poll, 51 percent of respondents said that Apple should help unlock the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.

"We need to get to an equilibrium about the needs of the state versus the needs of an individual," said Nuala O'Connor, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a tech advocacy group. "The Apple-FBI case crystallizes that there are very compelling national security concerns at stake. The decisions being made now are going to have a huge impact in our lives."

The group says it plans to release guidelines for the government and private sector to cooperate on policies that support both consumer privacy rights and national security needs at next month's RSA Conference in San Francisco. So far, the group has received input from retired government officials including a former National Security Agency director and Homeland Security secretary as well as senior technology executives and digital privacy advocates.

"Today we're wrestling with the conflicts between privacy and security as a series of disparate events," Michael Chertoff, former secretary of Homeland Security and executive chairman of the Chertoff Group, a Washington consulting firm, said in a statement. "A framework of guiding principles, norms of behavior and eventually laws and policies in this area will not only protect individual privacy, it will enable law enforcement and other government agencies to act with more speed, clarity, and context in the pursuit of their missions."

Art Coviello, the former executive chairman of RSA, a pioneering encryption company, began organizing the project last year, long before the standoff between Apple and federal investigators over the iPhone recovered after the California terrorist attacks. But by then the privacy debate was simmering because FBI officials had started pressuring the tech industry to develop ways its investigators could access encrypted communications when they had a warrant.

"The standoff between Apple and the US Government is a symptom of a larger issue," said Mr. Coviello in a statement. "The speed of change in technology has far outrun the ability of our current laws, policies, and social constructs to keep up." 

His Digital Equilibrium Project is planning to convene a gathering of experts, government officials, law enforcement, and tech executives to begin hammering out a new privacy framework this summer.

 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.