>>1074099
<POLITICO was unable to determine what participating agency leaders said during the meeting, but there is a well-known fault line on encryption within the executive branch.
<The DOJ and the FBI argue that catching criminals and terrorists should be the top priority, even if watered-down encryption creates hacking risks. The Commerce and State Departments disagree, pointing to the economic, security and diplomatic consequences of mandating encryption “backdoors.”
<DHS is internally divided. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency knows the importance of encrypting sensitive data, especially in critical infrastructure operations, but ICE and the Secret Service regularly run into encryption roadblocks during their investigations.
<An NSC spokesperson declined to comment on the meeting.
<The high-level NSC discussion highlights how policymakers have continued grappling with encryption even as it has receded from the headlines.
<“There is a significant [administration-]wide effort underway on what to do about the going dark issue,” said a lobbyist familiar with the discussions.
<Tech companies such as Apple and Google began increasing their use of end-to-end encryption in 2014, to address privacy concerns sparked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s disclosures about the vast sweep of U.S. government surveillance. In response, DOJ and the FBI reinvigorated a decades-old campaign against this feature, arguing that it posed an impenetrable roadblock in many criminal and counterintelligence investigations.
<The 2015 San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack brought the encryption debate into the mainstream when DOJ took Apple to court to access a locked iPhone belonging to one of the shooters. Then-FBI Director James Comey accused Apple of trying to create a space beyond the reach of U.S. law. But that dispute ended without a definitive legal precedent, and despite the “going dark” problem occasionally resurfacing[http://archive.fo/NOiC4], encryption hasn’t made major headlines for years.
<The transition between the Obama and Trump administrations saw a hand-off of sorts between two high-profile advocates of the need to access encrypted data. After President Donald Trump fired Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein succeeded him as the government’s top “going dark” warrior. Rosenstein, who dealt with the issue as a U.S. attorney, warned[http://archive.fo/ZtkdV] vaguely that cooperation with Silicon Valley was unlikely to work, implying that legislation might be needed.
<But now Rosenstein is gone, and experts generally agree that Congress is unlikely to pass a bill requiring warrant-compatible encryption.
<Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) floated a draft measure in 2016 after the San Bernardino attack, but an intense backlash quickly killed[http://archive.fo/t8ddw] its prospects, and despite occasional rumblings[http://archive.fo/npgOh], it has not reappeared since. The climate is no better for the administration in the Democratic-controlled House, where there is bipartisan opposition to undermining encryption.
<Still, the decision to hold an NSC deputies meeting --- which has happened rarely[http://archive.fo/ebDoB] under national security adviser John Bolton — suggests that the issue may not remain on the back burner for long.
2/2