End-to-end encryption during war: A double-edged sword?

E2EE is a paradox as it ensures the protection of information from bad actors but empowers these entities to channel propaganda and conduct information warfare

We all have, at some point in the recent past, heard of the term' end to end encryption (E2EE)', particularly after private chats were leaked to law enforcement agencies and media. These incidents have many asking: Can private messaging platforms actually read our chats? While the extent to which platforms or the government could read private communications was unclear, there is a societal urge to protect privacy. End to end encrypted technologies ensure exactly that - privacy will not be compromised. When E2EE is deployed on messaging platforms, only the sender and recipient will be privy to conversations, disabling third parties and the platforms themselves from accessing content.

In war, such as in the context of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, this question of safe and secure communication becomes all the more prominent. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis is testimony to the value of E2EE - the technology enables privacy for citizen communication and bolsters secure state communication. For instance, private actors such as WhatsApp, Meta, and Cloudflare have amped safety protocols to protect citizen interests in Ukraine and Russia amidst imminent threats to privacy and safety, reassuring users that E2EE will not be compromised.

National Security lens and E2EE

Just as E2EE prevents access to communications of citizens and the state, it can also protect conversations between bad actors, such as terrorists. Access to their communications can help law enforcement agencies anticipate and prevent crimes. E2EE is a double-edged sword - both its presence and absence could also bring about life and death risks, especially at war.

Conflicts exacerbate the risks of compromised systems of communication. Unencrypted communication networks leave doors open for exploitation by foreign actors, leaving countries extremely vulnerable to cyberattacks, including the spread of targeted misinformation intended to cause panic and unravel societal order. Foreign interference and control of devices and databases can pose a significant threat to national security. For instance, fitness tracking devices were banned for deployed US Army troops after a private company publicly released geolocation data that compromised troop movements.

Socio-economic utility of encryption

E2EE additionally entails socio-economic benefits, making it complicated to assess and understand. These gains are not realised only during the war but also in nation-building exercises and fuelling digital economies.

For the state, E2EE boosts the national economy - empirical data establishes a positive correlation between the availability of E2EE and legal protections around it with gains in GDP per capita and trust in digital financial services. Further, encryption enables secure official government communication. During wars, encryption enables disseminating and accessing of accurate and verified information facilitating citizen evacuation. Without encryption, communication networks are vulnerable to tampering by foreign actors, making them susceptible to information warfare via propaganda and the spread of disinformation.

No user would feel comfortable using platforms that are not E2E encrypted. The sudden spike in the usage of Signal, one of the most secure E2EE messaging apps, by Ukrainians during the ongoing war reflects the inclination of users to move towards more secure channels for communication. For businesses, E2EE amplifies user trust and reduces risks of reputational harm. In parallel, E2EE enhances the freedom of speech for individuals without fear of being traced, instilling a sense of security and online safety.

Protection of and protection from the E2EE paradox

Indeed, E2EE is a paradox - while E2EE ensures the protection of information from bad actors, it empowers these very entities to channel propaganda and conduct information warfare. However, attempts to break encryption to prevent the spread of disinformation are counterproductive as even unencrypted channels perpetuate disinformation. For instance, Meta reported how Ghostwriter, a bad actor, targeted citizens through an email compromise (unencrypted communication network) and then used login credentials to access social media profiles of public figures leading to an increase in the credibility of such disinformation.

Further, as much as encryption enables the spread of propaganda, it will also enable the spread of counter-propaganda as it provides a veil of security to citizens who wish to amplify their voices of truth or dissent.

Encryption as a techno-societal solution

In order to drive towards a meaningful policy conversation on encryption, taking the view that encryption is a techno-societal solution is critical. While it is at the core a technological measure, its efficacy can be undermined - as it has in several instances - by data breaches due to human error. These are a significant threat to encryption for businesses.

Besides the relevance of the human frontier, the societal gains from encryption are notable. They can accelerate economic growth and social freedoms. It acts as a technological solution by preventing access to communications by unintended recipients, and as a societal solution, it enhances citizenry privacy solving for surveillance concerns.

However, the absence of a legal and policy framework governing encryption can undermine its effectiveness and, therefore, utility. There is an urgent need to evaluate the impact of traceability requirements and enhance the legal frames and judicial scrutiny around when there may be de-encryption. We must bolster human capacity in businesses bridging the weakest link between the chair and computer.

Debates around encryption, particularly in the context of communications technology, individual security against national security need to happen. However, this policy conversation must engage with emerging empirical evidence on the socio-economic benefits of increased digital trust and safety for the state and its citizenry. While we do not know the future of this war, careful engagement on measures is critical for the short term and long-term economic rebuilding.

(Aishani Rai and Shefali Girish are Research Analysts at Aapti Institute, a Bangalore based tech policy think tank.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the authors' own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.

Check out latest DH videos here