Is It Possible to Ban Encryption?

The idea of completely banning encryption is often met with skepticism. While some may claim to have the ability to prevent it, the reality is quite different. If any government attempts to ban encryption, they are either demonstrating a profound lack of understanding or perhaps acting out of malice. This article explores the impossibility of banning end-to-end encryption (E2EE) and the potential consequences such a ban could have.

The Impossibility of Banning E2EE

While governments may be eager to discourage the use of strong encryption, the truth is, they cannot stop it. Even with a complete ban on encryption technologies, they would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate systems like E2EE. It is theoretically possible to implement AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) using only paper and a substantial amount of time, making it an impractical but feasible method to communicate securely.

Encryption is an intrinsic aspect of modern digital communication. Relying on the belief that encryption can be banned overlooks the fundamental nature of how information is processed and transmitted in the digital age. Encryption is not just a product but a concept that can be implemented at various layers of the network stack, making it nearly impossible to outmaneuver.

Consequences of Banning Encryption

Any attempt to ban encryption can have adverse ramifications. For instance, imagine a scenario where a suspect in a legal case is arrested simply because they had encryption software installed on their computer. Under such a ban, authorities would have a seemingly legitimate reason to detain individuals, thereby undermining the notion of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Another potential target in such a scenario would be enterprises. By declaring certain types of encryption illegal, companies would face existential threats. They might be compelled to install backdoors or other forms of weakened encryption for governmental reasons, preventing them from opposing certain policies out of fear. This chilling effect could lead to a suppression of innovation and free speech within software companies.

Understanding End-to-End Encryption

The term "end-to-end-encryption" (E2EE) often causes confusion as it is sometimes misinterpreted. A common misunderstanding is the roles of "operators" and "clients" versus "servers". However, in the digital age, these roles are fluid and change depending on the context of the communication. For example, when a PC visits a website, it typically acts as a client to the server. However, when the server responds with cookies, the roles reverse, and the server becomes the client. This fluid nature of roles makes it difficult to distinguish who exactly is "authenticated" and where the data is "as secure" without considering the context.

Consider an email communication: the sender and receiver of every message can be considered both parties in the transference of data, and the communication itself is end-to-end encrypted from the sender to the receiver. Similarly, in P2P file sharing, both parties could be considered clients and servers simultaneously in a session. The encryption in such scenarios is inherently end-to-end, ensuring that no party can intercept or understand the data in transit.

It is important to recognize that when two parties communicate and no data is left unencrypted, it qualifies as E2EE. Whether these parties are determined by traditional roles such as clients and servers or emerge in the hybrid nature of digital interactions, the classification of a communication as E2EE remains valid as long as the end-to-end encryption property is maintained.

Conclusion

Banning encryption is a notion that, while it may seem plausible at first, is riddled with logical and practical flaws. The fluid nature of network roles, coupled with the fact that E2EE can be implemented using various methods, means that any attempt to ban encryption is both illogical and impractical. Instead of attempting to limit access to powerful communication tools, governments would be better served by addressing the root causes of their concerns and fostering an environment where all parties can communicate securely and openly.