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.