To: Senator the Hon. George Brandis Attorney General of Australi <\/p>\n
Hon. Christopher Finlayson Attorney General of New Zealand <\/p>\n
Hon. Ralph Goodale Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada <\/p>\n
Hon. John Kelly United States Secretary of Homeland Security <\/p>\n
Rt. Hon. Amber Rudd Secretary of State for the Home Department, United Kingdom <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
CC: Hon. Peter Dutton, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Australia; <\/p>\n
Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, Canada; <\/p>\n
Hon. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General for the United States; <\/p>\n
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Canada; <\/p>\n
Hon. Michael Woodhouse, Minister of Immigration, New Zealand <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
To Ministers Responsible for the Five Eyes Security Community <\/p>\n
In light of public reports about this weeks meeting between officials from your agencies, the undersigned individuals and organizations write to emphasize the importance of national policies that encourage and facilitate the development and use of strong encryption. We call on you to respect the right to use and develop strong encryption and commit to pursuing any additional dialogue in a transparent forum with meaningful public participation. <\/p>\n
This weeks Five Eyes meeting (comprised of Ministers from the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia) discussed plans to press technology firms to share encrypted data with security agencies and hopes to achieve a common position on the extent of ... legally imposed obligations on device-makers and social media companies to co-operate.[1] In a Joint Communiqu following the meeting, participants committed to exploring shared solutions to the perceived impediment posed by encryption to investigative objectives.[2] <\/p>\n
While the challenges of modern day security are real, such proposals threaten the integrity and security of general purpose communications tools relied upon by international commerce, the free press, governments, human rights advocates, and individuals around the world. <\/p>\n
Last year, many of us joined several hundred leading civil society organizations, companies, and prominent individuals calling on world leaders to protect the development of strong cryptography. This protection demands an unequivocal rejection of laws, policies, or other mandates or practicesincluding secret agreements with companiesthat limit access to or undermine encryption and other secure communications tools and technologies.[3] <\/p>\n
Today, we reiterate that call with renewed urgency. We ask you to protect the security of your citizens, your economies, and your governments by supporting the development and use of secure communications tools and technologies, by rejecting policies that would prevent or undermine the use of strong encryption, and by urging other world leaders to do the same. <\/p>\n
Attempts to engineer backdoors or other deliberate weaknesses into commercially available encryption software, to require that companies preserve the ability to decrypt user data, or to force service providers to design communications tools in ways that allow government interception are both shortsighted and counterproductive. The reality is that there will always be some data sets that are relatively secure from state access. On the other hand, leaders must not lose sight of the fact that even if measures to restrict access to strong encryption are adopted within Five Eyes countries, criminals, terrorists, and malicious government adversaries will simply switch to tools crafted in foreign jurisdictions or accessed through black markets.[4] Meanwhile, innocent individuals will be exposed to needless risk.[5] Law-abiding companies and government agencies will also suffer serious consequences.[6] Ultimately, while legally discouraging encryption might make some useful data available in some instances, it has by no means been established that such steps are necessary or appropriate to achieve modern intelligence objectives. <\/p>\n
Notably, government entities around the world, including Europol and representatives in the U.S. Congress, have started to recognize the benefits of encryption and the futility of mandates that would undermine it.[7] <\/p>\n
We urge you, as leaders in the global community, to remember that encryption is a critical tool of general use. It is neither the cause nor the enabler of crime or terrorism. As a technology, encryption does far more good than harm. We therefore ask you to prioritize the safety and security of individuals by working to strengthen the integrity of communications and systems. As an initial step we ask that you continue any engagement on this topic in a multi-stakeholder forum that promotes public participation and affirms the protection of human rights. <\/p>\n
We look forward to working together toward a more secure future. <\/p>\n
Sincerely, 83 civil society organizations and eminent individuals (Listed Below) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Access Now <\/p>\n
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government <\/p>\n
Amnesty International <\/p>\n
Amnesty UK <\/p>\n
ARTICLE 19 <\/p>\n
Australian Privacy Foundation <\/p>\n
Big Brother Watch <\/p>\n
Blueprint for Free Speech <\/p>\n
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) <\/p>\n
Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) <\/p>\n
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) <\/p>\n
Center for Democracy and Techology <\/p>\n
Centre for Free Expression, Ryerson University <\/p>\n
Chaos Computer Club (CCC) <\/p>\n
Constitutional Alliance <\/p>\n
Consumer Action <\/p>\n
CryptoAustralia <\/p>\n
Crypto.Quebec <\/p>\n
Defending Rights and Dissent <\/p>\n
Demand Progress <\/p>\n
Digital Rights Watch <\/p>\n
Electronic Frontier Foundation <\/p>\n
Electronic Frontiers Australia <\/p>\n
Electronic Privacy Information Center <\/p>\n
Engine <\/p>\n
Equalit.ie <\/p>\n
Freedom of the Press Foundation <\/p>\n
Friends of Privacy USA <\/p>\n
Future Wise <\/p>\n
Government Accountability Project <\/p>\n
Human Rights Watch <\/p>\n
i2Coalition <\/p>\n
Index on Censorship <\/p>\n
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) <\/p>\n
Internet NZ <\/p>\n
Liberty <\/p>\n
Liberty Coalition <\/p>\n
Liberty Victoria <\/p>\n
Library Freedom Project <\/p>\n
My Private Network <\/p>\n
New Americas Open Technology Institute <\/p>\n
NZ Council for Civil Liberties <\/p>\n
OpenMedia <\/p>\n
Open Rights Group (ORG) <\/p>\n
NEXTLEAP <\/p>\n
Niskanen Center <\/p>\n
Patient Privacy Rights <\/p>\n
PEN International <\/p>\n
Privacy International <\/p>\n
Privacy Times <\/p>\n
Private Internet Access <\/p>\n
Restore the Fourth <\/p>\n
Reporters Without Borders <\/p>\n
Rights Watch (UK) <\/p>\n
Riseup Networks <\/p>\n
R Street Institute <\/p>\n
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest <\/p>\n
Clinic (CIPPIC) <\/p>\n
Scottish PEN <\/p>\n
Subgraph <\/p>\n
Sunlight Foundation <\/p>\n
TechFreedom <\/p>\n
Tech Liberty <\/p>\n
The Tor Project <\/p>\n
Voices-Voix <\/p>\n
World Privacy Forum <\/p>\n
Brian Behlendorf | Executive Director, Hyperledger, at the Linux Foundation <\/p>\n
Dr. Paul Bernal | Lecturer in IT, IP and Media Law, UEA Law School <\/p>\n
Owen Blacker | Founder and director, Open Rights Group; founder, NO2ID <\/p>\n
Thorsten Busch | Lecturer & Senior Research Fellow, University of St. Gallen <\/p>\n
Gabriella Coleman | Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy at McGill University <\/p>\n
Sasha Costanza-Chock | Associate Professor of Civic Media, MIT <\/p>\n
Dave Cox | CEO, Liquid VPN <\/p>\n
Ron Deibert | The Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs <\/p>\n
Nathan Freitas | Guardian Project <\/p>\n
Dan Gillmor | Professor of Practice, Walter Cronkite School of <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n