The dark side of encryption is also the light side

Generally speaking, we typically think of encryption as a good thing. It protects our data even if our device is lost or stolen, keeps hackers out of our private information and arguably adds a bit of mobile peace of mind to our electronic lives. But a couple of recent events have uncovered the darker side of encryption, and the uphill battle it faces to become the norm.

See also: Study finds 87% of Android devices are insecure due to lack of security updates73

The San Bernadino terrorist attack in California in late 2015 has recently been in the headlines again because the FBI is reportedly still unable to decrypt one of the attackers’ cell phones. FBI Director James Comey is once again using the failure to publicly deride encryption as a law-enforcement foil, claiming the encrypted data could reveal possible co-conspirators or explanations for the bag of home-made pipe bombs left behind by one of the attackers.

The FBI’s failure to decrypt terrorist communications, even after their capture or death, is becoming an increasingly high-profile political hot potato. As Comey stated, “encrypted cellphones and text messaging apps have made it harder for investigators and intelligence services to track suspected plots in real time, or trace locations and connections once they acquire a suspect’s device”.

While this is undoubtedly true, online commenters are claiming these incidents are just being used as highly-charged political pawns to get encryption banned. While Edward Snowden’s revelations back in 2013 demonstrated just how adept the NSA was at cracking online encryption, end-to-end encryption in messaging apps like Telegram and full disk encryption on devices are proving to be more difficult. And it’s not only the FBI that isn’t happy.

When two state bills, one introduced by a Republican in New York and the other by a Democrat in California, showed identical wording recently, they very quickly got noticed. The bills aim to ban the sale of encrypted devices in both states, except for those that could be unlocked by the manufacturer, with hefty fines for OEMs that failed to comply. This is almost exactly what the FBI Director has been calling for.

In response, a new bi-partisan bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that aims to smother the state-level bills in their cribs. The Ensuring National Constitutional Rights of Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016 (or ENCRYPT) aims to override the state level bills, with its bi-partisan creators saying they are deeply concerned about the implications of enforcing a ban on the sale of encrypted devices in certain U.S. states.

Whether the state level bills – or another apparently in the Senate pipelines that sound a lot like them – are secretly being orchestrated by the NSA, FBI or CIA to assist in unmasking terrorist activities or are simply designed to maintain unfettered access in the pursuit of complete surveillance, we’re unlikely to ever find out. But it seems that for every opponent of encryption there is an equally strong champion.

Shutterstock

Tech companies that have been courted by the government have steadfastly refused to provide back doors to their encryption. Deciding whether the prospect of tracking a fraction of nefarious actors warrants the exposure of an entire population is set to be a critical debate this year. One that is only going to intensify as high-profile incidents continue to be used as political punching bags, casting one side as in the public’s best interest when it perhaps is not and the other as protecting terrorists while it simultaneously protects the innocent.

The encryption debate is shaping up to a David and Goliath confrontation, with the American public on one side and the American government on the other, with the tech industry wedged firmly in the middle. The right to privacy versus the duty to protect. End-to-end encryption versus court ordered back doors. Online security versus national security. The lines are clear but neither side is backing down.

Which side do you fall on? Who do you think will win in the end?

Up next: AT&T CEO wants Silicon Valley to leave encryption regulation to politicians

Qualcomm unveils first gigabit LTE modem and three new mid-range SoCs

Qualcomm has had quite the busy day today. After unveiling its new Snapdragon Wear 2100 chipset built with Android Wear devices in mind, the company has now taken the wraps off four new products that are likely to make a splash in the mobile industry.

First, Qualcomm announced three new additions to the mid- and low-end Snapdragon lineup, the Snapdragon 625, 435 and 425. Unsurprisingly, the Snapdragon 625 is the highest-end out of the bunch. As the successor to the 617, the 625 features two quad-core clusters of Cortex A53’s and is clocked at 2GHz, up from its predecessor’s 1.5GHz clock speed. It also comes with an Adreno 506 graphics processor.

The Snapdragon 435 is next up on the list. This one replaces the Snapdragon 430, which was only unveiled a few months ago alongside the 617. The new 435 is an octa-core Cortex-A53 CPU and is the first in its class to integrate the X8 LTE modem, which supports 4G+, and 2x20MHz carrier aggregation for faster downlink and uplink LTE speeds. It’s clocked at 1.4GHz and comes with the Adreno 505 GPU. The Snapdragon 425 is a quad-core Cortex A53 CPU clocked at 1.4GHz and featuring an Adreno 308 GPU. This lower-end processor is aimed at replacing the Snapdragon 410 and 412.

For more detailed information on these three new SoCs, take a look at the press release in the source link below.

Qualcomm has also announced the mobile industry’s first Gigabit Class LTE modem, the Snapdragon X16 LTE. The X16 LTE modem is built on a 14nm FinFET process, and is designed to produce fiber-like LTE Category 16 download speeds of up to 1 Gbps, supporting up to 4x20MHz downlink across FDD and TDD spectrum with 256-QAM, and 2x20MHz uplink and 64-QAM for speeds up to 150Mbps. It’s important to note that the X16 LTE is ahead of its time, and the mobile network providers we have today don’t even come close to offering speeds of 1 Gbps. Qualcomm says with Gigabit Class LTE speeds, users will be able to take advantage of features such as live streaming 360-degree VR content and faster access to cloud-based apps and services.