Now, that the headlines “Apple vs. the FBI” have taken center stage, the breaking news has shown the power and menace of “dark messaging” services. These easily-used mobile phone applications enable users to send undetectable encrypted messages and erase all traces of anything they send or receive from the device, or application and network used.
Think of the way Snapchat erases the images and texts that teenagers send; then add technologies that make these messages untraceable and unreadable by anyone other than the intended recipients. That’s dark messaging.
This innovative technology, which is impervious to surveillance, has opened an entirely new debate surrounding civil liberties and our national security. Dark messaging apps make it impossible for governments to monitor them, even with a court order.
Dark messaging disables “back door” access for the government to disrupt or trace criminal or terrorist activities. It also prevents the collection of evidence that would lead to knowledge about whom the terrorists worked with and help to bring the perpetrators to justice
Many start-ups, including Telegram, Threema, Surespot, Redphone, Silent Text, Periscope, Meerkat, Cyber Dust, Mirage, Confide, Clipchat, Silent Circle and Text Secure offer dark messaging services.
Many of the tech companies running dark messaging apps believe they should be the unquestioned protectors of their clients’ data against the prying eyes of government. They argue that they do not own or control their customers’ data just because they are processing it.
The attacks in Paris, France, and San Bernardino, Calif., and regrettably soon elsewhere make the tech companies’ argument irrelevant and irresponsible. They confuse the issue of who needs protecting from whom. The companies’ claim of technological neutrality makes it harder to monitor and prevent terrorism. If the tech community does not recognize and address the danger of dark messaging and its contribution to terror, they will become isolated from their customers, policy makers and investors.
These terrorist attacks clearly demonstrate how Dark Messaging shields data from the government and provides terrorists with real operational advantages. These apps provide the terrorists an asymmetric advantage providing terrorists a battlefield competitive edge over security services working to keep all of us safe.
Even Silicon Valley’s own senator, Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence committee, believes steps to limit the technologies need to be pursued. “Silicon Valley has to take a look at their products,” she said. “If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents whether it is at a stadium or small café in Paris, or take down an airliner, that’s a big problem.”
Both sides need to give a little in the debate over civil liberties versus security. Technology purists need to recognize the links between rights and responsibilities. The security purists need to recognize that due process remains a necessary aspect of how they operate. Individuals have no unlimited right to have access to technology regardless of its impact, just as security agencies do not have absolute free rein.
Unless the tech companies agree to provide access to dark messaging apps and their content, the pressure for regulation will increase. The American public will become more frustrated with the clear recognition of dark messaging occurring in the shadows and aiding and abetting the planning of terrorist attacks.
