The FT does its readers a disservice by using the stale “back door” metaphor for encryption (FT View, February 26). The back door charge dates to the 1990s and is now as relevant as a flip phone.
Putting aside the inescapable data collection by companies and by governments like China, the ways to access a person’s data without their consent are too numerous to list.
Israel’s NSO Group, for example, is not unique in the service it offers, allowing spyware to be planted on a device without the user’s knowledge or consent. The real issue at hand is whether there should be a class of data which should not be subject to a warrant lawfully issued by a court. The appeal of this to criminals is obvious and while privacy activists may imagine they are the target of snoopers, they are not worth the effort. The backdoor myth is tenable only when confusion over the technology of espionage combines with an irrational distrust of courts, police and government that verges on a Trumpian dread of the “deep state”. It is disappointing to see the FT endorse it.
James Lewis
Washington, DC, US
