With End-to-End Encryption, Compliance Trouble Brewing for Legal
An almost air-tight protection, end-to-end encryption can stop internal compliance or e-discovery efforts dead in their tracks.Though the debate over absolute…
September 06, 2017 at 12:57 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
An almost air-tight protection, end-to-end encryption can stop internal compliance or e-discovery efforts dead in their tracks.
Though the debate over absolute encryption rages on, encryption is fast becoming a must-have security item in a growing number of law firms and legal departments. But as encryption usage grows, many are finding that it can cause more problems than it solves. End-to-end encryption, for example, can often cripple a legal team's compliance and internal e-discovery efforts.
Shaun Murphy, founder and CEO of SNDR, a secure messaging platform, explained that end-to-end encryption is essentially “encryption in transit,” which secures data when it transfers “between phones or computers, or even web browsers and servers.”
End-to-end encryption is perhaps most widely used in electronic messages, whether sent by applications like WhatsApp and Signal or email servers. Murphy explained that the essential benefit of such encryption is that “every message is encrypted separately.”
“So the theory is that if anyone were to break some level of encryption, they would only get one message, and they would have to go through the whole process again to breach other messages as well,” he said.
For the time being, end-to-end encryption is one of the most secure protections on the market. “At this point there is really no known big [security] defect for that cryptography in these systems,” Murphy noted, adding that the only way to break such encryption is through “side challenge attacks” such as stealing a user's access credentials.
But while a near infallible protection, end-to end-encryption is the bane of many compliance and e-discovery efforts, given that by its very nature, such encryption restricts access with little, if any, flexibility for outside parties.
“For legal professionals, and pretty much any business, you have to look at what your compliance requirements are,” Murphy said. “Because once you have end-to-end cryptography between the sender and recipient how do you go back and do compliance, how do you look at those message?”
Potentially having to manually unlock every single encrypted message can be so cumbersome and time-consuming it becomes almost infeasible. But one solution is to limit the extent to which encryption is deployed in-house in the first place.
Writing in Legaltech News, Ricoh USA's David Greetham, vice president of e-discovery sales and operations, and David Levine, vice president of information security and CISO, noted that legal professionals always need to “balance the level of encryption against the need for ease of use and accessibility.”
“Some types of encryption can be so cumbersome that they interfere with the operation of the firm. Use of an email encryption service, for example, can require users to log in to the service for every single email sent and received,” they wrote.
In addition to finding such a balance, law firms and legal departments need to account for the use of shadow IT—unauthorized applications used by employees—that includes end-to-end encryption functions as well.
“Organizations and e-discovery practitioners should be proactively surveying employees about their usage of encryption applications and technologies in advance of an actual discovery need,” Adam Feinberg, senior vice president of professional services at legal information management company BIA, told Legaltech News.
“Your e-discovery provider vetting process should include questions about that organization's experience in identifying, collecting and handling cloud and encrypted data sources,” he advised.
Such oversight is necessary, because for the time being, encryption and internal compliance are two mutually exclusive processes.
“There are not that any tools out there that have end to end cryptography with some level of compliance, legal hold, or e-discovery,” Murphy said.
But there may be some hope on the horizon. “The next two or three years will see a shift for cloud services that [serve] industries like legal or medical to enable compliance while providing encryption,” he added.
Murphy also predicted that organizations and law firms will start looking into the feasibility of a “hybrid solution,” where messages and documents are kept in a secure internal server in-house. The content will only become encrypted, he explained, once it leaves that internal server, which can be accessed readily by compliance and e-discovery teams.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1M&A Transactions and AB 1824: Navigating New Privacy Compliance Challenges
- 2Devin Nunes, Former California GOP Congressman, Loses Move to Revive Defamation Suit
- 3Judge Sides With Retail Display Company in Patent Dispute Against Campbell Soup, Grocery Stores
- 4Is It Time for Large UK Law Firms to Begin Taking Private Equity Investment?
- 5Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250