Saving Face(book)? Message Encryption Raises Legal Complications for Tech Platforms
As Facebook moves toward privacy-focused messaging, encryption's legal and ethical complications could come into play.
March 08, 2019 at 12:33 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Facebook announced this week it would begin focusing on private messaging services, on top of its public social media post model.
In a blog post Wednesday, the Menlo Park, California-based company's chief executive officer, Mark Zuckerberg, said one of Facebook's new principles would be encryption. He said end-to-end encryption on all of the company's messaging services—WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram—is “the right thing to do.”
“At the same time, there are real safety concerns to address before we can implement end-to-end encryption across all of our messaging services,” he wrote. “Encryption is a powerful tool for privacy, but that includes the privacy of people doing bad things.”
He's touching on an ongoing debate that, so far, doesn't have an easy answer.
“I think the biggest debate that has raged about implementing encryption into social media is how do you respond to law enforcement requests [for] the data?” said Wynter Deagle, a partner at Troutman Sanders.
Encrypting messages can prevent data breaches and keep communication secure. It can also prove troublesome for law enforcement, who require a specially built “backdoor” to access encrypted messages that could help an investigation or prevent crime.
In the U.S., platforms are not required by law to include a backdoor for law enforcement, though other countries, namely Australia, have passed bills requiring companies provide access during investigations.
“One of the challenges from a security standpoint is if you create a backdoor, that backdoor could also be potentially used by hackers, people with bad intent. It creates a way into your encrypted systems,” said Thomas Barnett, special counsel and chief of data science, analysis and investigation at Paul Hastings.
He noted that offering users encryption with a backdoor option may provide a false sense of security. If a breach happens, the company's reputation is on the line. Some users may also feel less secure knowing that their messages can be accessed, a further public relations problem, Deagle noted.
It's also complicated to implement backdoor access on a global scale. Platforms then have to answer: Who does the door open for? Under what circumstances, and in what countries? In his blog post, Zuckerberg said political dissidents told him “encryption is the reason they are free, or even alive.”
“If you make an exception for the U.S. government, are you going to make value judgments around which governments are trustworthy enough to provide the backdoor to?” Deagle said.
Last year, Australia passed a bill requiring companies operating in the country provide an encryption backdoor to law enforcement. Outside of Australia, most countries don't yet have an encryption law, though lawyers noted that the encryption debate is happening alongside a growing number of privacy legislation worldwide.
The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and other privacy laws could require companies to update users if they make encryption changes. But, lawyers said, it's not yet clear if there's an obligation for tech companies to use encryption under privacy laws.
|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
© 2024 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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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