Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin

Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White 

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

O

n Oct. 4, Attorney General 
William P. Barr wrote a 
letter to Facebook with 
counterparts 
from 
Britain 
and Australia calling for the 
company 
to 
halt 
plans 
to 
implement strong encryption 
across all of its messaging 
services. This is the latest 
episode in the long-running 
debate over government access 
to encrypted data. Beginning in 
the 1990s with the introduction 
of strong encryption software 
such as Pretty Good Privacy, the 
United States government and 
governments around the world 
have fought for “backdoors” in 
encryption. A U.S. proposal for a 
universal backdoor was defeated 
in the ’90s, but as the Snowden 
leaks showed, the government’s 
public defeat only made it pursue 
a backdoor covertly. The U.S. 
government used a combination 
of 
secret 
hacking, 
coercion 
and subversion to achieve a de 
facto backdoor. Following the 
Snowden leaks, companies have 
strengthened their encryption 
and security practices and have 
been less publicly willing to 
cooperate 
with 
government 
requests for data. Barr’s letter 
is the latest contribution to this 
polarized debate.
First, what is encryption and 
why does it matter? Broadly, 
encryption transforms data into 
a string of bits whose original 
state can only be revealed with a 
specific key. For example, if you 
were sending a message with the 
data “I love The Michigan Daily,” 
encryption 
would 
transform 
the data into something like 
“hfoahdjdsh90112aofa00” 
— 
intelligible only to those with 
the appropriate key. Encryption 
is the foundation of much of 
what we do online, enabling the 
flow of confidential information 
like our banking and health 
data by keeping it hidden and 
secure. It protects dissenters, 
journalists and everyday people 
from 
prying 
governments, 
organizations and individuals. 
As more parts of our lives move 
online, privacy and security 
are increasingly important. We 
expect what we say and do in 
private won’t be surveilled or 
exposed. The same should be 
true of our private discussions, 
activities and existence online. 
Weakening encryption weakens 
privacy and security online and 
threatens 
people’s 
freedom, 

safety and well-being.
With 
all 
the 
benefits 
of 
encryption, 
what 
are 
governments’ 
arguments 
for a backdoor, and what is 
a backdoor? Generally, it is a 
mechanism built into encryption 
systems that allows a third party 
to decrypt data when needed. 
Governments 
argue 
that 
as 
strong encryption becomes more 
common, criminal activities are 
increasingly able to “go dark,” 
or become hidden from law 
enforcement, undermining the 
rule of law and endangering us 
all. To combat this, governments 
argue that companies need to 
create ways for law enforcement 
to 
access 
encrypted 
data 
when they need it — through 
backdoors.
In 
most 
cases, 
however, 
government 
arguments 
for backdoors are far from 
convincing. 
Privacy 
and 
security 
experts 
argue 
that 
backdoors threaten the security 
and privacy of all users, and a 
bipartisan congressional report 
concluded that backdoors would 
“(work) against the national 
interest.” 
Forcing 
companies 
to build backdoors would only 
make everyday citizens less 
secure, while doing nothing to 
prevent criminals from using 
encryption. 
Any 
backdoor 
created for governments could 
be exploited by hackers through 
either targeting the backdoor 
directly or stealing access from 
governments. 
Additionally, 
the technology to use strong 
encryption is already out there. 
Building backdoors into everyday 
applications will put everyone 
at risk while doing little to stop 
tech-savvy criminals from using 
strong encryption.
There are some situations 
where 
the 
debate 
about 
law 
enforcement 
access 
to 
encrypted data is less one-
sided. As our phones become 
the 
“everything” 
tool 
and 
strong 
encryption 
is 
more 
common, 
evidence 
such 
as 
calendars, notes, pictures and 
videos has become increasingly 
difficult to obtain, even with a 
warrant. Local law enforcement 
often lack the resources and 
expertise to bypass a device’s 
strong security and encryption 
systems on their own, and they 
don’t have many options for 
help. Compelling suspects to 

provide access to their phones 
would undermine the Fifth 
Amendment and be useless in 
situations where suspects are 
unable or unwilling to help. 
Additionally, companies are less 
willing to help law enforcement 
access data and are designing 
devices to be warrant proof. 
This combination of inadequate 
capabilities and unavailable help 
can render suspects’ devices 
useless to investigations. As 
privacy becomes a selling point 
for 
technology 
companies 
from 
Apple 
to 
Facebook, 
their 
increasingly 
absolutist 
positions 
should 
be 
taken 
with a grain of salt. A narrow 
solution that protects privacy 
and security while providing 
law enforcement access when 
appropriate is not impossible 
as tech companies often argue. 
Tech companies already comply 
with 
the 
vast 
majority 
of 
government requests for data, 
though they don’t publicize 
it. Also, there are a number 
of 
existing 
proposals 
to 
address locked out devices. If 
representatives of companies, 
privacy 
advocates 
and 
the 
government engage in good 
faith discussions, a narrow, 
communitarian solution should 
be 
possible. 
Unfortunately, 
absolutism is often simpler and 
more popular.
There are certainly some 
situations where the debate 
over encryption is less lopsided. 
However, 
they 
are 
narrow 
cases 
where 
policies 
and 
system design are essential, 
not 
encryption 
capabilities 
themselves. 
Proposals 
to 
directly undermine encryption 
with 
“backdoors” 
are 
misguided, lazy and dangerous. 
Instead of fear mongering to 
justify a dragnet, governments 
should 
engage 
privacy 
advocates and companies in 
good faith discussions about 
limited 
solutions. 
Strong 
encryption is the foundation of 
much of the modern internet, 
and 
protecting 
it 
protects 
everyone 
and 
everything 
online. Turning encryption into 
a marketing symbol or national 
security scapegoat undermines 
that protection and makes us all 
the more vulnerable.

Stop blaming encryption

NOAH ENTE | COLUMN

The NBA commits a flagrant foul on free speech

CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN

Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be 

reached at chandrn@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the 
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 
words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. 
Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to 
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

FROM THE DAILY

How Trump is constructing a closed America
I

n the most recent installment in the crackdown on immigration, the 
Trump administration announced that they will be denying visas 
to immigrants who cannot prove that they can afford healthcare.

This proclamation comes in 
conjunction with the planned 
expansion of DNA testing on 
immigrants detained near the 
federal border. This testing 
is separate from the rapid 
DNA testing used to prove 
parentage to detect potential 
traffickers who pose as family 
members of children in order 
to avoid prolonged detention. 
Rather, this new testing will 
be used to provide extensive 
DNA profiles of potential 
convicts, and the results will 
be shared with other United 
States 
law 
enforcement 
agencies.
Both policies are deeply 
rooted in negative stereotypes 
of 
immigrants, 
and 
such 
measures can seriously harm 
a 
marginalized 
population 
that is already vulnerable to 
various forms of xenophobia. 
Through 
these 
policies, 
President 
Donald 
Trump 
characterizes 
the 
U.S. 
as an elite nation that is 
exclusive 
and 
intolerant 
of 
underprivileged, 
low-income 
and 
non-
Caucasian populations. The 
implementation 
of 
these 
policies is an extension of 
the Trump administration’s 
callous 
treatment 
of 
immigrants, 
particularly 
those from Latin American 
countries. 
Moreover, 
the 
process 
of 
immigrating 
to 
the 
U.S. 
is 
already 
extraordinarily difficult. The 
addition of further obstacles, 
such as the health insurance 
requirement, show a profound 
insensitivity to the fraught 
immigration process. 
Effective on Nov. 3, 2019, 
this proclamation will allow 
consular officers to deny visas 
for those who do not have 
approved health insurance 
or those who cannot prove 
their 
financial 
ability 
to 
afford health care in the U.S. 
This proclamation will also 
disqualify immigrants who 
already live in the country 
and applied for subsidized 
coverage, 
rendering 
their 
status illegal. The Trump 
administration has justified 
this 
classist 
policy 
with 
the 
claim 
of 
“protecting 
American 
taxpayers” 
and 
“promoting self-sufficiency” 
among immigrants. By using 
health care — a basic human 
right millions of Americans 
already struggle to afford — 
as a litmus test to assess one’s 
eligibility to be American is 
both exploitative and unjust. 
It implies that only those who 
enjoy financial privileges are 
allowed to become American 
citizens 
and 
furthers 
the 
elitist and racist undertones 
in 
American 
immigration 
policies. 
Similarly, the DNA testing 
policy evokes a sense of 

class stigma that aggravates 
the racialized immigration 
policies of our border. The 
implementation 
of 
DNA 
collection 
was 
initially 
permitted through the DNA 
Fingerprint 
Act 
of 
2005, 
but 
the 
detainees 
were 
exempt from the law due to 
an agreement by the Obama 
administration — until now. 
To 
justify 
this 
measure, 
the 
Trump 
administration 
has 
cited 
whistleblower 
complaints 
that 
accused 
the 
Customs 
and 
Border 
Protection of failing to comply 
with the act to fully carry out 
DNA collection. Nevertheless, 
the policy provides no basis 
for 
such 
infringement 
of 
personal privacy and equates 
immigrants 
to 
dangerous 
criminals. 

In addition, since most of 
the DNA pool will be composed 
of Latinx individuals from 
the 
Southern 
border, 
it 
subscribes to and furthers 
the 
incorrect 
conception 
that 
a 
disproportionately 
large number of criminals 
are Latinx. This policy also 
raises 
concerns 
regarding 
the government’s extensive 
usage of technology and the 
limits — or lack thereof — 
of such innovation. While 
providing 
security 
for 
our 
own 
citizens, 
these 
technologies are also capable 
of surveilling an exploited 
population. This is akin to 
what we have seen in the 
Xinjiang province of China 
with regard to the Uighur 
Muslims or the Chechnya 
crackdown 
on 
LGBTQ 
individuals. Vera Eidelman, 
a 
staff 
lawyer 
with 
the 
American 
Civil 
Liberties 
Union’s Speech, Privacy, and 
Technology Project, said to 
the New York Times, “(this) 
kind of mass collection alters 
the purpose of DNA collection 
from 
one 
of 
criminal 
investigation 
basically 
to 
population 
surveillance, 
which is basically contrary 
to our basic notions of a 
free, trusting, autonomous 
society.” 
The 
administration’s 
announcement of these new 
policies does not necessarily 
mean they will actually come 
to fruition, but their mere 
proposal holds weight. On 
paper, these policies are meant 

to curb illegal immigration. 
In reality, they will simply 
make the legal immigration 
process 
much 
more 
difficult and disincentivize 
legal 
immigration. 
The 
accompanying 
statement 
to these proposals contains 
the 
phrasing 
that 
too 
many 
non-citizens 
were 
taking 
advantage 
of 
the 
U.S.’s 
“generous 
public 
health programs” and that 
immigrants 
augment 
the 
country’s 
“uncompensated 
health 
care 
costs.” 
This 
manner of thinking further 
vilifies 
the 
immigrant 
population, 
clearly 
using 
them as a scapegoat for the 
massive health care crisis in 
the U.S.
Additionally, 
the 
collection 
of 
DNA 
from 
migrants 
crossing 
U.S. 
borders provides no tangible 
benefit to U.S. society and 
thus only further demonizes 
those seeking to immigrate 
to the U.S. In these instances, 
Trump is simply reaffirming 
his campaign promises of 
removing all undocumented 
immigrants 
and 
limiting 
legal 
immigration. 
Policies such as these ones 
only 
deepen 
the 
divide 
between 
“desirable” 
and 
“undesirable” populations in 
the U.S. in already extremely 
divisive times. Any effort to 
curb legal immigration is the 
antithesis of what American 
values were meant to stand 
for.
The U.S. has stigmatized 
its 
immigrant 
populations 
for 
the 
majority 
of 
its 
history, 
as 
demonstrated 
by 
the 
formation 
of 
the 
Know-Nothing Party in 1849 
against Irish and German 
immigrants, the 1882 Chinese 
Exclusion Acts and 1924’s 
Johnson-Reed 
Act, 
which 
limited 
immigrants 
from 
all over the world — except 
Asia, which was completely 
excluded. 
These 
policies 
are just a modern iteration 
of 
anti-immigrant 
ideals 
against another group. They 
are far from the first to show 
a preference for white, high-
income immigrants. Under 
the current administration, 
the rhetoric used against 
Latinx populations has been 
racist, fear-mongering and 
xenophobic. 
Policies 
like 
the 
DNA 
collection 
and 
health care registration are 
meant to criminalize Latinx 
immigrants 
and 
will 
do 
nothing to address the influx 
of illegal immigration on the 
border. Though it is likely 
these new policies will be 
challenged in some capacity 
before they go into effect, the 
attempt to implement them is 
a grossly offensive attack on 
legal immigration.

Both policies are 
deeply rooted 
in negative 
stereotypes about 
immigrants

O

n the eve of a preseason 
basketball 
exhibition 
game in Tokyo, Daryl 
Morey, general manager of the 
Houston Rockets, sent out a tweet 
that reverberated around the globe. 
Morey expressed support for the 
pro-democracy protesters in Hong 
Kong, with a graphic that read 
“Fight for Freedom, Stand with 
Hong Kong.” Such a sentiment 
has bipartisan support from many 
in the United States and while 
Morey quickly retracted it, the 
message garnered many positive 
and negative responses. The global 
significance of Morey’s single tweet 
revealed a great deal about China 
and the NBA, and brought into 
question the tensions between free 
speech and business practices.
China’s 
government, 
people 
and business sectors have been 
overwhelmingly 
angry 
about 
Morey’s since-deleted tweet and 
sought for Morey to be censored in 
addition to other consequences. In 
the days since the general manager’s 
tweet was posted, Chinese state-run 
media have pulled Rockets games 
from television, basketball apparel 
stores 
have 
removed 
Rockets 
merchandise, and fans have pulled 
their support for the Rockets and, in 
some cases, the NBA as a whole.
All of this has forced the NBA 
and the Rockets into a full-scale 
cleanup 
operation. 
The 
NBA 
issued a press release apologizing 
for any offense caused by Morey’s 
purportedly insensitive comments. 
Houston’s owner Tilman Fertitta 
publicly emphasized that his team is 
“NOT a political organization” and 
that Morey “does NOT speak for the 
@HoustonRockets.” Even Morey 
himself sent out a two-part tweet 
apologizing to anyone who was 
offended and reaffirming his team 
and the league’s commitment to 
China moving forward. All of these 
responses and more sprung out of 
one seven-word tweet.
China is the NBA’s largest foreign 

market, with millions of fans who 
purchase merchandise, tune into 
games and actively engage with 
the league. The Houston Rockets – 
often associated with China since 
2002 when Houston drafted the 
7-foot-6 Shanghai-native Yao Ming 
with the first overall draft pick – 
have been historically beloved in 
the country. Many of these Chinese 
fans have expressed willingness 
to take their team loyalties and 
expenditures on sports elsewhere. 
The league has viewed it as a wise 
business strategy to cater to the 
will of China and its people by 
avoiding any sort of critical political 
statements from league employees 
and has acted accordingly in the 
Morey affair.
Yet 
the 
NBA’s 
self-abasing 
behavior regarding China and 
its political sensitivities is deeply 
concerning. By using the Chinese 
economy and people as a weapon, 
the totalitarian Chinese media 
and government have just been 
granted 
the 
power 
to 
stifle 
American speech, even outside of 
Chinese soil. Instead of prioritizing 
values of free expression, NBA 
Commissioner Adam Silver and 
the league placed the economic 
interests of what is essentially a 
multi-billion-dollar business ahead 
of the constitutional rights of their 
own employees.
In the past, the NBA has had no 
trouble taking action in accordance 
with its stated morals. The league 
was willing to pull an All Star 
game 
from 
Charlotte, 
North 
Carolina — where one of its teams, 
the Hornets, is based — because 
league officials strongly disagreed 
with the state’s “Bathroom Bill.” 
Yet in their responses to Daryl 
Morey’s tweet, the NBA would not 
dare to risk offending President Xi 
Jinping or Chinese fans. Though 
Silver later made an effort to 
clarify the league’s position and 
show support for free speech, the 
damage of capitulation had already 

been done, and the precedent had 
already been set.
This incident from last week 
begs the question of how much 
American companies could soon 
be forced to cave to the demands 
and sensitivities of the Communist 
Party of China. What sorts of 
discussion topics could soon be off 
limits to U.S. citizens for fear of 
losing their jobs? It is frightening 
to think that authoritarian limits 
to free speech in China could be 
forced on anyone around the globe, 
especially in America, and that 
businesses would fall in line in 
their efforts to simply follow the 
money.
This recent news also brings 
about a final question as to 
how U.S. consumers — still the 
majority of the NBA’s market — 
should respond in the face of last 
week’s events. While Chinese 
fans continue to grow upset over 
Morey’s expression of his beliefs, 
American supporters should hold 
the league accountable for its 
weak handling of the situation and 
willingness to throw a member of 
its community under the bus for 
simply utilizing his right to free 
expression.
The NBA, which often speaks 
of its core values, has a choice to 
make between living up to such 
morals or not having any. If league 
executives decide to forget about 
their ethical commitments once 
their profits stand to take a hit, 
they will have granted tremendous 
and dangerous power to Xi and his 
regime. If Americans truly consider 
free speech to be a fundamental 
value, we must be willing to vote 
with our wallets and TV remotes. 
A policy of appeasement from our 
companies toward China is equally 
disturbing and as inappropriate as 
it would be for our government. 

Noah Ente can be reached at 

noahente@umich.edu.

