The federal government needs to be clearer about the importance of
accessing encrypted smartphone evidence in order to prosecute criminals,
a Justice Department lawyer acknowledged Monday.
"We need to do a
better job explaining how many cases are affected by this," Kiran Raj,
senior counsel to the deputy attorney general, said at a Georgetown
University law school panel discussion on encryption and privacy.
Federal
law enforcement officials have repeatedly warned in the last year that
encryption technology built into smartphones is making it harder for
investigators to monitor messages from criminal suspects and to get the
evidence they need while investigating child exploitation and other
crimes. They want to ensure that they can access encrypted
communications during investigations, with companies maintaining the key
to unlock such data.
But technology companies have called those
concerns overstated, saying encryption safeguards customers' privacy
rights and offers protections from hackers and other breaches.
Critics
also say the government has not made a compelling case that horrible
crimes have occurred because law enforcement officials couldn't
intercept encrypted communications. Nor have officials been able to
point to a significant number of cases cracked because investigators had
access to a smartphone. Some of the cases that federal officials have
cited have involved evidence collected from sources other than on a
phone.
"Quantitatively, I'd be the first to say that we as the
government need to do a better job," Raj said. He said the fact that
investigators used other means to solve a crime doesn't mean that
encrypted communication was any less of a concern.
Technology
companies and law enforcement have been at odds on the encryption
debate, and it's not clear where the disagreement is headed. Justice
Department officials have said they aren't necessarily seeking a
legislative fix and are instead hoping to work collaboratively with the
companies.
Robert Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, expressed hope that some middle
ground might be found. "The fact that there isn't a 100 percent solution
doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get a solution for as much as we can,"
he said.