Backdoors Aff

1AC

Plan
Plan: The USFG should prohibit creation of backdoors and use
of backdoors from companies in the US.

Economy Advantage
Backdoors Crush US Economy 2 Internal Links:
1. Kills legitimacy of US Tech Markets abroad which spills over
to the rest of the economy
Holmes 13 [Allan Holmes is Director of Technology and Telecommunications with Bloomberg Government. He
was editor of Nextgov, a website affiliated with Government Executive covering federal technology policy, and
editor-in-chief of Federal Computer Week. He received his B.A. in journalism from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill and a masters in public policy from Duke University. NSA Spying Seen Risking Billions in U.S.
Technology Sales, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-10/nsa-spying-seen-risking-billions-in-u-stechnology-sales, September 10th, 2013//Rahul]

Reports that the National Security Agency persuaded some U.S. technology companies
to build so-called backdoors into security products, networks and devices to allow
easier surveillance are similar to how the House Intelligence Committee described the threat posed by
China through Huawei. Just as the Shenzhen, China-based Huawei lost business after the report urged U.S. companies not to use its equipment, the
NSA disclosures may reduce U.S. technology sales overseas by as much as 180
billion dollars, or 25 percent of information technology services, by 2016, according to
Forrester Research Inc., a research group in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The National Security Agency will kill the U.S. technology industry

. These companies may be just

dealing with the difficulty in meeting our numbers through the end of the decade.
Internet companies, network equipment manufacturers and encryption tool makers
receive significant shares of their revenue from overseas companies and
governments. Cisco Systems Inc., the worlds biggest networking equipment maker, received 42 percent of its $46.1 billion in fiscal 2012
singlehandedly, Rob Enderle, a technology analyst in San Jose, California, said in an interview

revenue from outside the U.S., according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Symantec Corp., the biggest maker of computer-security software based in
Mountain View, California, reported 46 percent of its fiscal 2013 revenue of $6.9 billion from markets other than the U.S., Canada and Latin America. Intel
Corp., the worlds largest semiconductor maker, reported 84 percent of its $53.3 billion in fiscal 2012 revenue came from outside the U.S., according to

that NSA has

cracked codes protecting e-mail and Web content and convinced some equipment
and device makers to build backdoors into products. That followed earlier reports that the NSA was obtaining
and analyzing communications records from phone companies and Internet providers. The revelations have some
overseas governments questioning their reliance on U.S. technology .
Germanys government has called for home-grown Internet and e-mail companies .
Brazil is analyzing whether privacy laws were violated by foreign companies. India may ban e-mail services from
Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc., the Wall Street Journal reported. In June, China Daily labeled U.S. companies,
including Cisco, a terrible security threat. One year ago we had the same concern about Huawei, James Staten, an analyst at
data compiled by Bloomberg. Exact Flipping The New York Times, the U.K.s Guardian and ProPublica reported in early September

Forrester, said in an interview. Now this is the exact flipping of that circumstance. Tarnished Reputations An Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation report in August found U.S. providers of cloud services -- which manage the networks, storage, applications and computing power for
companies -- stand to lose as much as $35 billion a year as foreign companies, spooked by the NSAs surveillance, seek non-U.S. offerings.

Customers buy products and services based on a companys reputation, and the
NSA has single-handedly tarnished the reputation of the entire U.S. tech industry , said

Daniel Castro, the reports author and an analyst with the non-partisan research group in Washington, in an e-mail. I suspect many foreign customers are
going to be shopping elsewhere for their hardware and software. Chips, Devices The latest disclosures were based on documents provided by Edward
Snowden, the former NSA contractor accused of espionage by the U.S. whos now in Russia under temporary asylum. While the NSA mentioned no

some companies were persuaded to

insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems , IT systems, networks and endpoint
communications devices used by targets. The documents also said the NSA was trying to work with makers of
chips used in Virtual Private Network and Web encryption devices . The German magazine Der
company by name, agency documents posted on the New York Times website said

Spiegel separately reported the NSA cracked encryption codes to listen in on the 1.4 billion smartphones in use worldwide, including Apple Inc.s iPhone.
Google, Facebook Inc. and Yahoo yesterday petitioned the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which rules on warrants for domestic data, for
permission to publish the types of requests theyve received from the NSA. The three companies were among 22 that sent a letter in July to President
Barack Obama and congressional leaders urging that the companies be allowed to say more about their dealings with the agency. Companies Defense
Cisco said it doesnt customize equipment to enable surveillance. Ciscos product development practices specifically prohibit any intentional behaviors or
product features which are designed to allow unauthorized device or network access, exposure of sensitive device information, or a bypass of security

features or restrictions, John Earnhardt, spokesman for the San Jose, California-based company, said in a statement. Symantec said in a statement that it
learned of the NSAs encryption cracking in the media. We had no prior knowledge about this program, said Anna Zvagelskaya, of public relations firm
Weber Shandwick, which represents Symantec. We have long held that Intel does not participate in alleged government efforts to decrease security in
technology, Lisa Malloy, an Intel spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. Congress, Huawei While foreign firms may be more suspicious of some U.S.- made

Its a worldwide market

and some companies may try to benefit from not being a U.S.-based company , but
the real issue is enterprises are trying to protect themselves in most cases from
cyber criminals or malicious insiders or competitors, he said in an interview. Theyre not so concerned with
technologies, the impact of the disclosures may be limited, said Charles Kolodgy, a security analyst with IDC.

what a nation-state is doing, The market-leading gear is often market-leading because its the best. Weve gone past being able to source everything
within a country. The NSA revelations also may undermine congressional efforts to block U.S. sales of networking equipment made by Huawei and ZTE
Corp., Chinas second-largest phone-equipment maker, also based in Shenzhen. A House Intelligence Committee report released in October 2012 said the
companies close ties to the Chinese government and its ability to build backdoors into U.S. computer networks might allow China to disrupt power grids,
financial networks or other critical infrastructure. That suspicion applies to almost every government and technology company, William Plummer, a Huawei

Threats to data integrity are not limited to the acts of certain

governments or the equipment or services of companies with select countries of
origin, he said. Plummer called the U.S. governments pursuit of Huawei an innuendo-driven political exercise and for industry and government to
spokesman, said in an e-mail.

leave political games behind and pursue real solutions to more secure networks and data.

Tech sector key to economic recovery and growth brink is now

Muro et al 15 [Mark Muro - a senior fellow and director of policy for the Metropolitan Policy Program at
Brookings, manages the program's public policy analysis and leads key policy research projects, Johnathan Rothwell
- fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. His research focuses on labor market economics, social
mobility, access to education, and the sources of economic growth, Scott Andes, Kenan Fikri, and Siddharth Kulkarni
all fellows at Brooking Institutions. Americas Advanced Industries, What They Are, Where They Are, and Why They
Matter. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/02/03-advancedindustries/final/AdvancedIndustry_FinalFeb2lores.pdf?la=en, February 2015//Rahul]

The need for economic renewal in the United States remains urgent. Years of disappointing
job growth and stagnant incomes for the majority of workers have left the nation
shaken and frustrated. At the same time, astonishing new technologiesranging from advanced robotics and
3-D printing to the digitization of everythingare provoking genuine excitement even as they make it
hard to see where things are going. Hence this paper: At a critical moment, this report asserts the
special importance to Americas future of what the paper calls Americas advanced
industries sector. Characterized by its deep involvement with technology research and development (R&D) and
STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) workers, the sector encompasses 50 industries ranging from manufacturing industries such as
automaking and aerospace to energy industries such as oil and gas extraction to high-tech services such as computer software and computer system

These industries encompass the nations tech sector

at its broadest and most consequential. Their dynamism is going to be a
central component of any future revitalized U.S. economy . As such, these
industries encompass the countrys best shot at supporting innovative, inclusive,
and sustainable growth. For that reason, this report provides a wide-angle overview of the advanced industry sector that reviews its
design, including for health applications.

role in American prosperity, assesses key trends, and maps its metropolitan and global competitive standing before outlining high-level strategies to

Advanced industries represent a sizable economic anchor for

the U.S. economy and have led the post-recession employment recovery . Modest in size, the
sector packs a massive economic punch. As an employer and source of economic activity the
advanced industry sector plays a major role in the U.S. economy . As of 2013, the nations 50
enhance that. The overview finds that: 1.

advanced industries (see nearby box for selection criteria) employed 12.3 million U.S. workers. That amounts to about 9 percent of total U.S. employment.

U.S. advanced industries produce 2.7 trillion dollars in

value added annually17 percent of all U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). That is
more than any other sector, including healthcare, finance, or real estate. At the same time, the sector employs 80 percent of the
And yet, even with this modest employment base,

nations engineers; performs 90 percent of private-sector R&D; generates approximately 85 percent of all U.S. patents; and accounts for 60 percent of U.S.
exports. Advanced industries also support unusually extensive supply chains and other forms of ancillary economic activity. On a per worker basis,
advanced industries purchase $236,000 in goods and services from other businesses annually, compared with $67,000 in purchasing by other industries.

This spending sustains and creates more jobs. In fact, 2.2 jobs are created
domestically for every new advanced industry job 0.8 locally and 1.4 outside of the region. This means that in
addition to the 12.3 million workers employed by advanced industries, another 27.1 million U.S. workers owe their jobs to economic activity supported by

the sector supports almost 39 million jobsnearly onefourth of all U.S. employment. In terms of the sectors growth and change, the total number of jobs in the sector has remained
advanced industries. Directly and indirectly, then,

mostly flat since 1980 but its output has soared. From 1980 to 2013 advanced industries expanded at a rate of 5.4 percent annually30 percent faster
than the economy as a whole. Since the Great Recession, moreover, both employment and output have risen dramatically. The sector has added nearly
one million jobs since 2010, with employment and output growth rates 1.9 and 2.3 times higher, respectively, than in the rest of the economy. Advanced
services led this post-recession surge, and created 65 percent of the new jobs. Computer systems design alone generated 250,000 new jobs. Certain
advanced manufacturing industriesespecially those involved in transportation equipmenthave also added thousands of jobs after decades of losses.
Advanced industries also provide extremely high-quality economic opportunities for workers. Workers in advanced industries are extraordinarily productive
and generate some $210,000 in annual value added per worker compared with $101,000, on average, outside advanced industries. Because of this,
advanced industries compensate their workers handsomely and, in contrast to the rest of the economy, wages are rising sharply. In 2013, the average
advanced industries worker earned $90,000 in total compensation, nearly twice as much as the average worker outside of the sector. Over time, absolute
earnings in advanced industries grew by 63 percent from 1975 to 2013, after adjusting for inflation. This compares with 17 percent gains outside the
sector. Even workers with lower levels of education can earn salaries in advanced industries that far exceed their peers in other industries. In this regard,
the sector is in fact accessible: More than half of the sectors workers possess less than a bachelors degree. 2. The advanced industries sector is highly
metropolitan and varies considerably in its composition and depth across regions. Advanced industries are present in nearly every U.S. region, but the
sectors geography is uneven. Advanced industries tend to cluster in large metropolitan areas. Looking across the country, the 100 largest metro areas
contain 70 percent of all U.S. advanced industries jobs. In terms of the sectors local clustering, San Jose is the nations leading advanced industry hub
with 30.0 percent of its workforce employed in the sector. Seattle follows with 16.0 percent of its local jobs in advanced industries. Wichita (15.5 percent);
Detroit (14.8 percent), and San Francisco (14.0 percent) follow. Overall, advanced industries account for more than one in 10 jobs in nearly one-quarter of
the countrys major metro areas. This clustering occurs in a variety of configurations. Some metropolitan areassuch as Grand Rapids, MI; Portland, OR;
and Wichitafocus heavily on advanced manufacturing pursuits such as automotive, semiconductor, or aerospace manufacturing, respectively, while
metros like Bakersfield and Oklahoma City exhibit strong energy specializations. By contrast, services such as computer systems design, software, and
research and development predominate in metropolitan areas like Boston, San Francisco, and Washington. For their part, San Jose, Detroit, and Seattle
exhibit depth and balance across multiple advanced industry categories. Overall, the number of extremely dense concentrations of advanced industry
actually has declined. In 1980, 59 of the countrys 100 largest metropolitan areas had at least 10 percent of their workforce in advanced industries. By

. The United States is losing ground to

other countries on advanced industry competitiveness. The United States has the most
productive advanced industries in the world, behind only energy-intensive Norway. However, this competitiveness appears to
be eroding. The nations declining concentration in advanced industries and its
negative trade balance in the sector do not bode well . Since 2000, the sectors employment and output as a
2013, only 23 major metro areas contained such sizable concentrations. 3

share of the total U.S. economy has shrunk. The nations standing on these measures now lags world leaders. Equally worrisome is the balance of trade in
the sector. Although advanced industries export $1.1 trillion worth of goods and services each year and account for roughly 60 percent of total U.S.
exports, the United States ran a $632 billion trade deficit in the sector in 2012, in line with similar yearly balances since 1999. To be sure, a handful of
individual advanced industries such as royalties and other intellectual property and aerospace manufacturing enjoy trade surpluses that exceeded $60
billion and $80 billion in 2012. However, numerous areas of historical strength such as communications equipment, computer equipment, motor vehicles,

Notwithstanding
the nations strong innovation enterprise the United States advantage on this front
is slipping. For certain the advanced industry sector remains the key site of U.S.
technology gains. However, the United States is losing ground relative to other countries on measures of innovation performance and
and pharmaceuticals now run sizeable deficits, as do high-value R&D services and computer and information services.

capacity. For example, the U.S. share of global R&D and patenting is falling much faster than its share of global GDP and population, meaning that U.S.
slippage cannot simply be attributed to demography or macroeconomic convergence. Likewise, Americas research dominance looks less impressive after
adjusting for the size of its working age population. Turning to the nations critical regional innovation ecosystems, surprisingly few U.S. metropolitan areas
rank among the worlds most innovativeas measured by patent cooperation treaty applications per capita. Among the nations most patent-intensive
regions, just twoSan Diego and the San Jose-San Francisco combined arearank in the global top 20 and just two more (Boston and Rochester) score in
the top 50.

Slow growth and economic decline cause multiple scenarios for

conflict and huge wars
Haass 13

[Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of
Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to
Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. The World Without Americahttps://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haass, April 30th, 2013//Rahul]

The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the
foreseeable future is not a rising China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or
climate change. Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the
US are its burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system,
Let me posit a radical idea:

and slow economic growth in short, --the domestic foundations of American power.
Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in Americas

The US and those representing it have been guilty of

hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples of
inconsistency between Americas practices and its principles understandably
difficulties. Such a response should not be surprising.

provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment.
But, like most temptations, the urge to gloat at Americas imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted . People around the globe
should be careful what they wish for. Americas failure to deal with its internal
challenges would come at a steep price. Indeed, the rest of the worlds stake in
American success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US
economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US growth
accelerates, Americas capacity to consume other countries goods and services will
increase, thereby boosting growth around the world . At a time when Europe is drifting
and Asia is slowing, only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global
economic recovery. The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the worlds citizens communicate with mobile devices based
on technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly
increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its way around the globe, allowing other
societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable

, the US has long

been a leading example of what market economies and democratic politics can
accomplish. People and governments around the world are far more likely to
become more open if the American model is perceived to be succeeding . Finally, the
world faces many serious challenges , ranging from the need to halt the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world economic order that
promotes trade and investment to regulating practices in cyberspace, improving
global health, and preventing armed conflicts. These problems will not simply go
away or sort themselves out. While Adam Smiths invisible hand may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the
source of ideas. Its world-class universities educate a significant percentage of future world leaders. More fundamentally

world of geopolitics. Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global responses to global challenges. Dont get me wrong:
None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the worlds problems on its own. Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US
lacks the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But

No other
country has the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This brings me back to the
argument that the US must put its house in order economically , physically, socially, and politically if it is
to have the resources needed to promote order in the world. Everyone should hope that it does: The
alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather
a world that is not led at all. Such a world would almost certainly be characterized by chronic crisis and
conflict. That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast majority of the
planets inhabitants.
multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and implement. Right now there is only one candidate for this role: the US.

Studies prove our impact is true

Royal 10 [Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense,
2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and
Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214]

economic decline may increase the likelihood of external

conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the
Less intuitive is how periods of

security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and
national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's

rhythms in the global economy are associated with

the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one
pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises
could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to
uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively,
even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive
environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power
(1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that

(Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact
the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between

global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of

'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in

understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that
trade expectations suggests that

interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations.

if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such
as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use
force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for
decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent
states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and
external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a
strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during
periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are
However,

strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the

presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international

and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89)
Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of
terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions.
Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests
that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline , sitting governments
have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally
around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting
evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani

the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater

for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible
to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of
weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential
popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force . In summary, recent
and Pickering (2009) suggest that

economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas

political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at

systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed
conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

Cyber Security Advantage

The risk of cyberterrorism is highexperts agree that
adversaries have the technical skills and political motivation to
carry out a dangerous cyberattack
Burg 14 (David, Global & U.S. Cybersecurity Leader, PwC and a principal in the
firm's US Advisory business, US cybercrime: Rising risks, reduced readiness Key
findings from the 2014 US State of Cybercrime Survey, June 2014,
www.pwc.com/us/en/increasing-it-effectiveness/publications/assets/2014-us-stateof-cybercrime.pdf)
The risks and repercussions of cybercrime In this 12th survey of cybercrime
trends, more than 500 US executives, security experts, and others from the public
and private sectors offered a look into their cybersecurity practices and state of risk
and readiness to combat evolving cyber threats and threat agents. One thing is very
clear: The cybersecurity programs of US organizations do not rival the
persistence, tactical skills, and technological prowess of their potential
cyber adversaries. Today, common criminals, organized crime rings, and nationstates leverage sophisticated techniques to launch attacks that are highly targeted
and very difficult to detect. Particularly worrisome are attacks by tremendously skilled threat actors that
attempt to steal highly sensitiveand often very valuableintellectual property, private communications, and other

the US Director of
National Intelligence has ranked cybercrime as the top national security threat,
higher than that of terrorism, espionage, and weapons of mass destruction .1
strategic assets and information. It is a threat that is nothing short of formidable. In fact,

Underscoring the threat, the FBI last year notified 3,000 US companiesranging from small banks, major defense

The United States

faces real [cybersecurity] threats from criminals, terrorists, spies, and malicious
cyber actors, said FBI Director James B. Comey at a recent security conference.2 The
playground is a very dangerous place right now. Nation-state actors pose a particularly
pernicious threat, according to Sean Joyce, a PwC principal and former FBI deputy
director who frequently testified before the US House and Senate Intelligence committees. We are
seeing increased activity from nation-state actors, which could escalate
due to unrest in Syria, Iran, and Russia, he said. These groups may target
financial services and other critical infrastructure entities. In todays volatile
cybercrime environment, nation-states and other criminals continually and rapidly
update their tactics to maintain an advantage against advances in security
safeguards implemented by businesses and government agencies. Recently, for instance,
contractors, and leading retailersthat they had been victims of cyber intrusions.

hackers engineered a new round of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks that can generate traffic rated at a
staggering 400 gigabits per second, the most powerful DDoS assaults to date.

Backdoors create vulnerabilities that threaten cyber

infrastructure makes attacks likely
Burger et al, 14 (Eric, Research Professor of Computer Science at Georgetown,
L. Jean Camp, Associate professor at the Indiana University School of Information
and Computing, Dan Lubar, Emerging Standards Consultant at RelayServices, Jon M
Pesha, Carnegie Mellon University, Terry Davis, MicroSystems Automation Group,

Risking It All: Unlocking the Backdoor to the Nations Cybersecurity, 7/20/2014,

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2468604)
This paper addresses government policies that can influence commercial practices to weaken security in products

The debate on information surveillance for national

security must include consideration of the potential cybersecurity risks and
economic implications of the information collection strategies employed . As IEEE-USA,
and services sold on the commercial market.

we write to comment on current discussions with respect to weakening standards, or altering commercial products
and services for intelligence, or law enforcement. Any policy that seeks to weaken technology sold on the
commercial market has many serious downsides, even if it temporarily advances the intelligence and law

we define and
address the risks of installing backdoors in commercial products, introducing
malware and spyware into products, and weaken ing standards. We illustrate that
these are practices that harm Americas cybersecurity posture and put the
resilience of American cyberinfrastructure at risk. We write as a technical society to
enforcement missions of facilitating legal and authorized government surveillance. Specifically,

clarify the potential harm should these strategies be adopted. Whether or not these strategies ever have been used

Individual computer users, large corporations and

government agencies all depend on security features built into information technology
products and services they buy on the commercial market. If the security features
of these widely available products and services are weak, everyone is in greater
danger. There recently have been allegations that U.S. government agencies (and
some private entities) have engaged in a number of activities deliberately intended to
weaken mass market, widely used technology. Weakening commercial products and services does
have the benefit that it becomes easier for U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct
surveillance on targets that use the weakened technology, and more information is available for law
enforcement purposes. On the surface, it would appear these motivations would be reasonable. However, such
strategies also inevitably make it easier for foreign powers, criminals and
terrorists to infiltrate these systems for their own purposes . Moreover,
everyone who uses backdoor technologies may be vulnerable , and not just the handful of
in practice is outside the scope of this paper.

surveillance targets for U.S. intelligence agencies. It is the opinion of IEEE-USAs Committee on Communications
Policy that no entity should act to reduce the security of a product or service sold on the commercial market without
first conducting a careful and methodical risk assessment. A complete risk assessment would consider the interests

A
methodical risk assessment would give proper weight to the asymmetric nature of
cyberthreats, given that technology is equally advanced and ubiquitous in the United States, and the locales of
many of our adversaries. Vulnerable products should be corrected , as needed, based on this
of the large swath of users of the technology who are not the intended targets of government surveillance.

assessment. The next section briefly describes some of the government policies and technical strategies that might
have the undesired side effect of reducing security. The following section discusses why the effect of these practices
may be a decrease, not an increase, in security.

Government policies can affect greatly the

security of commercial products, either positively or negatively. There are a number of methods by
which a government might affect security negatively as a means of facilitating legal government surveillance. One
inexpensive method is to exploit pre-existing weaknesses that are already present in commercial software, while
keeping these weaknesses a secret. Another method is to motivate the designer of a computer or communications
system to make those systems easier for government agencies to access. Motivation may come from direct
mandate or financial incentives. There are many ways that a designer can facilitate government access once so

the system may be equipped with a backdoor. The company

that creates it and, presumably, the government agency that requests it would
know the backdoor, but not the products (or services) purchaser(s). The hope is that the
government agency will use this feature when it is given authority to do so, but no
one else will. However, creating a backdoor introduces the risk that other
parties will find the vulnerability, especially when capable adversaries,
motivated. For example,

who are actively seeking security vulnerabilities, know how to leverage

such weaknesses. History illustrates that secret backdoors do not remain secret
and that the more widespread a backdoor, the more dangerous its existence . The
1988 Morris worm, the first widespread Internet attack, used a number of backdoors
to infect systems and spread widely. The backdoors in that case were a set of secrets then known only
by a small, highly technical community. A single, putatively innocent error resulted in a largescale attack that disabled many systems. In recent years, Barracuda had a completely
undocumented backdoor that allowed high levels of access from the Internet addresses
assigned to Barracuda. However, when it was publicized, as almost inevitably happens, it became extremely
unsafe, and Barracudas customers rejected it. One example of how attackers can
subvert backdoors placed into systems for benign reasons occurred in the network of the largest
commercial cellular operator in Greece. Switches deployed in the system came equipped
with built-in wiretapping features, intended only for authorized law enforcement
agencies. Some unknown attacker was able to install software , and made use of these
embedded wiretapping features to surreptitiously and illegally eavesdrop on calls from many
cell phones including phones belonging to the Prime Minister of Greece, a hundred highranking Greek dignitaries, and an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Greece before the security
breach finally was discovered. In essence, a backdoor created to fight crime was used to
commit crime.

Two scenarios:
First is retaliation
Cyber-attacks wipe-out the US military---causes nuclear war
Robert Tilford 12, Graduate US Army Airborne School, Ft. Benning, Georgia,
Cyber attackers could shut down the electric grid for the entire east coast 2012,
http://www.examiner.com/article/cyber-attackers-could-easily-shut-down-theelectric-grid-for-the-entire-east-coa
**we reject ableist and offensive language
a cyber attack that can take out a civilian power grid, for example could
cripple (destroy) the U.S. military. The senator notes that is that the same power grids
that supply cities and towns, stores and gas stations, cell towers and heart monitors also power
every military base in our country. Although bases would be prepared to weather a
short power outage with backup diesel generators, within hours, not days, fuel supplies would run out,
he said. Which means military command and control centers could go dark. Radar
systems that detect air threats to our country would shut Down completely. Communication
between commanders and their troops would also go silent. And many weapons systems
would be left without either fuel or electric power, said Senator Grassley. So in a few
short hours or days, the mightiest military in the world would be left scrambling to
maintain base functions, he said. We contacted the Pentagon and officials confirmed
the threat of a cyber attack is something very real. Top national security officials
To make matters worse
also

including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA

have said, preventing a cyber attack and improving the nations electric grids is among the
most urgent priorities of our country (source: Congressional Record). So how serious is the Pentagon taking all this?
Enough to start, or end a war over it, for sure. A cyber attack today against the US could very well be
Director

seen as an Act of War and could be met with a full scale US military
response. That could include the use of nuclear weapons, if authorized by the President.

Second is the grid

A cyberattack is likely - will shut down US power grids and
critical infrastructure
Lenzner 14 (Robert, National Editor of Forbes magazine and has a B.A. (cum
laude) from Harvard University and an M.B.A. from Columbia University, Chinese
Cyber Attack Could Shut Down U.S. Electric Power Grid, November 28 2014,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2014/11/28/chinese-cyber-attack-couldshut-down-u-s-electric-power-grid)
It appears that our enemies (read competitors) have made exceedingly greater
progress in their sophisticated cyber-warfare techniques than we have achieved in
defending ourselves. Now comes Admiral Michael Rogers, the head of the National
Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, who warned last week that
China and perhaps two other unnamed nations had the ability to launch a
cyber attack that could shut down the entire U.S. power grid and other
critical infrastructure.
Such a dire possibility should well have gotten a wider prominent play in the media.
Yet Admiral Rogers underscored that software detected in China could seriously
damage our nations economic future by interfering with the electric utility power
companies that the citizens of New York, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit and other urban
centers require as the basi/c life blood of survival. This possibility is a great deal
more dangerous than stealing 76 million names from JP Morgan Chase.
This not a Sci-Fi fantasy being perpetrated as a hoax on the American public. The
NSA head flatly predicted that it is only a matter of the when, not the if, that we
are going to see something traumatic. He admitted NSA was watching multiple
nations invest in this dangerous capability. He called the danger a coming trend,
where our vulnerability will be equivalent to a hole in our software systems that are
unseen by the multinational company, the public utility, the telecom giant, the
defense manufacturer, the Department of Defense.
NATO took the threat seriously enough to organize mock cyber-wargame trials in
Estonia several days ago that indicated the western nations are aware of the need
to fight on a new battlefield where the enemy cannot be seen physically. It was the
largest digital warfare exercise ever attempted, a trial run to test dealing with a new
non-military threat to global security.
Consider the financial damage to our nation from an attack that could shut down
the power systems of major cities. As Forbes pointed out a decade ago, there was a
very great need to spend the money building firewalls around our infrastructures
internet communications network. We are in worse shape today, since NSA chief
Rogers plainly told the congressional intelligence committee last week the Chinese
intelligence services that conduct these attacks have little to fear because we have
no practical deterrents to that threat.

The cyber threat is real. America had better wake up to the need to defend the
cogwheels of our economy from the electronic reconnaissance attacking our
industrial control systems. Public opinion needs to be aroused by the media and
security officials into a threat that no one can see as it is invisible. It is not Soviet
missiles we fear, but inroads by nation states and criminal elements fronting for
them. Our cyber command capabilities are as crucial as our Special Forces in
beating back ISIS and other Islamic terrorists.

Cloud computing Advantage

Advantage is cloud computing
Government backdoors decimate cloud computing industry and
decks US tech leadership
Zara 13 (Christopher, Financial Contributor @ International Business Times,
"Privacy, Security And The Economy: Why The US Government Cares More About
Spying On Your Email Than Getting You A Job," http://www.ibtimes.com/privacysecurity-economy-why-us-government-cares-more-about-spying-your-email-gettingyou-job)
Imagine if the U.S. government had created institutional barriers
that hindered the development of the American tech sector in the 1980s and '90s.
No Microsoft or Apple, no Google nor Facebook . What would the world look like today? The short answer is simple:
The stunted growth of Silicon Valley would have allowed tech companies in other
countries to fill the void, to meet the needs of the world that were being fueled by
vast technological change. Fortunately, that hypothetical scenario didnt happen , but
according to Daniel Castro, senior analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a modern-day version
of it is taking place as we speak. Castro has been studying the effects that the
government-surveillance scandal could have on the U.S. tech industry . He said that if
privacy-conscious computer users decide that the risks of storing data with a U.S.
company simply outweigh the benefits, the results could be devastating. U.S.
companies, which have really been leaders in this field, will lose their
dominance, he said in a phone interview. And it wont be because of technical inferiority, but because of legal restrictions, or perceptions
about the implications of legal regimes. Earlier this month, Castro released a report showing that the U.S.
cloud-computing industry stands to lose $22 billion to $35 billion during the next
few years -- all as a result of the National Security Agencys surveillance and the
negative press associated with it. Cloud computing is no niche segment, by the way. According
Hows this for an alternate reality?

to the technology research firm Gartner Inc. (NYSE:IT), the industry is expected to grow 18.5 percent to $131 billion this year. By 2016, consumers will

a sizable chunk of the tech industry is heading into

the clouds, which includes everything from third-party email such as Yahoo Mail and Gmail to free software applications like Google Docs. Its
the next frontier in technology, and its one that American companies currently
dominate. But that could change on a dime, Castro warns. Bad press about U.S. tech
giants complying with the NSAs Prism program could scare consumers into going
elsewhere to spend that $677 billion. To visualize the domino effect that could have, Castro advises to imagine if privacy concerns had tainted
spend $677 billion on cloud services worldwide. Clearly,

Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT) just as Windows was taking off as the dominant operating system. Instead of having Microsoft as one of these leaders,
thered be a French company there, or German or Japanese company, he said. It would just be a loss to the economy and a loss to all the types of
product development and innovation weve seen overall. And in some ways, the extent to which the government is or isnt violating our privacy is beside

the very idea of frumpy NSA agents hunched over computer

terminals and reading our private emails could be enough to set the
wheels of an exodus in motion. He likened it to the infamous 2005 incident in which a woman fraudulently claimed to have
the point. Castro said

found a severed finger in a bowl of chili at a Wendys restaurant. Wendys Company (NASDAQ:WEN) later said that it lost $2.5 million in sales due to all the
bad publicity. It didnt matter that it didnt happen, Castro said. It was the visual. It was the image. Snooped Out Of Business In fact,

there is

evidence that Castros doomsday scenario is already starting to unfold . On Aug. 8, the private
email service Lavabit abruptly shut down. The service, which allowed subscribers to send encrypted email messages, was believed to have been used by
the NSA leaker Edward Snowden. Its shutdown was, presumably, the result of a legal skirmish in which the U.S. government attempted to force the
company to hand over private data about its users. In an interview with Democracy Now, Lavabits founder, Ladar Levison, said he is under a gag order,
and cannot share further details. On the Lavabit website, however, he was quite blunt about his feelings: This experience has taught me one very
important lesson: Without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a

company with physical ties to the United States. In other words, if you care about your privacy, forget U.S. tech companies. Go somewhere else. Its a
strong statement but one that didnt surprise Katherine Albrecht, a longtime privacy advocate and co-founder of StartMail, a private email service that is
currently in beta testing. I think this is a terrible thing, she told International Business Times. We have entrepreneurs creating viable and thriving
businesses who are being forced to shut down because of this climate were operating in. Ironically, Albrecht takes that position as someone who stands
to gain a competitive edge from the demise of U.S.-based cloud services. StartMail is owned by Surfboard Holding BV, a privately held company based in
the Netherlands, and Albrecht has long touted its overseas location as a selling point for privacy-conscious consumers. Long before Edward Snowden
became a household name, she and her StartMail colleagues set out to develop an encrypted email service that would be truly safe. But they understood
that it needed to be safe not just from the prying eyes of data-collecting behemoths like Google Inc. (NASADAQ:GOOG) and Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO),
but from the U.S. government, which, under the Patriot Act, can force American companies to hand over data. That said, it should come as no surprise that
Levisons decision to shutter Lavabit rather than compromise its users privacy has garnered praise from its marketplace competitors. I was truly grateful
to him for taking that position, Albrecht said, likening Levison to Snowden. Here is the second person now who has fallen on his sword, sacrificing himself
for the rest of us. And Levison and Snowden are not alone with their swords. Following Lavabits abrupt closure, Silent Circle, a rival company that offered
encrypted communications, made the drastic decision to preemptively shut down its own private email service. Speaking to the MIT Technology Review,
Mike Janke, the companys chief executive, admitted that email can never be truly private. Why? Because metadata -- information about when messages
are sent and where theyre sent to -- cant be encrypted. The basic mechanisms of the Internet prohibit it. Albrecht compares it to sending a piece of snail
mail thought the U.S. Postal Service, which operates under the basic premise that all mail must be properly labeled. I can have a sealed envelope and
encase it in lead and lock it up really tight, but somehow I have to tell the postman where its going, she said. Encrypted email works the same way.
Encryption only seals the contents. Backdoor Men The U.S. government has never been a fan of private encryption services. On its website, the research
group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has cataloged more than two decades worth of efforts by the government to restrict and even ban
encryption. One report, dated May 1995, outlines an attempt by then-FBI Director Louis Freeh, who wanted to require companies to provide a trap door
that would allow the government to access private encrypted information if it needed to. The proposal was a response to the bombing of the federal

More recently, the FBI has been pushing for updates to the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, or CALEA. The current
law requires telephone companies to make their lines accessible to interception by
the U.S. government. But if the FBI gets its way, that requirement will extend to electronic communications, and tech companies would
building in Oklahoma City.

then need to provide a backdoor that the government could access. It would essentially prevent services like what Lavabit was trying to provide from
existing in the United States, said Amie Stepanovich, an attorney with EPIC who specializes in privacy and domestic surveillance. So what exactly is the
governments beef with encryption? For one thing, private email services -- like Albrechts StartMail -- put users in control of their own passwords. That
means companies that offer such services couldnt access their users data even if they wanted to, which also means that if the FBI, NSA or any
government agency came knocking, there would be nothing for them to find. Were not law enforcement, said Albrecht. If they came and asked us for a
users password, wed say, you have to take it up with them. We dont have it. That is a far cry from services provided by companies such as Gmail. In a
Google court filing posted just this month by Consumer Watchdog, attorneys for the tech giant said Gmail users have no legitimate expectation of
privacy when they use the service, which automatically scans messages for the purpose of placing relevant ads. Google likened the practice to a
secretary screening a bosss snail mail before delivering it, an analogy that Albrecht doesnt buy. Ill tell you this, she said. If the secretary were opening

That the
FBI is looking to squelch private email services doesnt bode well for the alreadytarnished reputation of U.S. tech companies , which took much heat for reportedly complying with the Prism program
despite their denials to the contrary. European firms are seeing the scandal as an opportunity to gain
a competitive advantage, with hopes that such initiatives as Cloud Services Made In Germany and the Sovereign Cloud project in
it and photocopying it and sticking it in her briefcase and taking it home, Id have a real problem with that secretary. If Not Here, Where?

France could lure customers away from snooping U.S. spies. But Stepanovich said such ambitions may not be so easy to realize. You also have to ask
yourself if you trust [European] governments as well, she said. The U.K., for example, has been coming out against any revelations about their own
surveillance activities. Castro agrees, saying it will be an uphill climb for any one country to establish itself as being fundamentally different from the U.S.
in terms of national security and domestic surveillance. The question becomes: Will one country emerge as the digital Switzerland or the digital Cayman
Islands? he said. Will they set up a regulatory regime that is specifically intended to give their country a domestic advantage for cloud computing? But

just the possibility that the U.S. could lose its cloud-computing dominance should
concern lawmakers far more than it seems to be , Castro said. One reason he released the ITIF report on the
potential economic effects of Prism was to spark a conversation that he believed not enough people are having. (He said President Obama fell short during
a recent speech in which he vowed surveillance reform.) Sure, weve heard plenty about privacy, our civil rights and debates over the Fourth Amendment.

few people realize the extent to

which snooping and the economy are linked, which is a blind spot evident in the much-publicized NSA slides
But to echo James Carvilles famous dictum, Its the economy, stupid. The problem is,

that Snowden leaked to the Washington Post. According to one of those slides, operating costs for the Prism program are just $20 million a year.

the policy side of this, a cost-benefit analysis that ignores this

whole column of economic consequences .
Ridiculous, Castro said. It just reflects a complete failure on

Tech leadership is key to US primacy

Baru 9 (Visiting Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore)
(Sanjaya, Year of the power shift?, http://www.indiaseminar.com/2009/593/593_sanjaya_baru.htm)

There is no doubt that economics alone will not determine the balance of global
power, but there is no doubt either that economics has come to matter for
more.The management of the economy, and of the treasury, has been a vital

aspect of statecraft from time immemorial. Kautilyas Arthashastra says, From

the strength of the treasury the army is born. men without wealth do not
attain their objectives even after hundreds of trials Only through wealth can
material gains be acquired, as elephants (wild) can be captured only by
elephants (tamed) A state with depleted resources, even if acquired, becomes
only a liability.4 Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic
consequences.5 In the modern era, the idea that strong economic performance
is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul
Kennedy. Victory (in war), Kennedy claimed, has repeatedly gone to the side
with more flourishing productive base.6 Drawing attention to the
interrelationships between economic wealth, tech nological innovation, and the
ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for
power projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were
able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others. The
fact remains, Kennedy argued, that all of the major shifts in the worlds
military-power balance have followed alterations in the productive balances;
and further, that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the
international system has been confirmed by the outcomes of the major Great
Power wars, where victory has always gone to the side with the greatest
material resources.7 In Kennedys view the geopolitical consequences of an
economic crisis or even decline would be transmitted through a nations inability
to find adequate financial resources to simultaneously sustain economic growth
and military power the classic guns vs butter dilemma.

Decline causes great power wars

Zhang 11 et al., Carnegie Endowment researcher, 2011 (Yuhan, Americas
decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry, 1-22,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflictand-rivalry/, ldg)
This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and
perhaps alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the worlds largest, the

the global distribution

of power is shifting, and the inevitable result will be a world that is less peaceful,
liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict regulation. Over
the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the
US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear,
many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate
role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US,
creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew
these powers together withers, so will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The
result will be an international order where power is more diffuse, American interests and
influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history
attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation . For example, in the
once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus,

late 19th century Americas emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the
turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to
challenge the notion that Britain rules the waves. Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of
the Western Hemispheres security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and
rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions
of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society.

As a result of

such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms
have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter
this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these
advances as Americas influence declines? Given that Americas authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across
much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to

Public imagination and academia

have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the
1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral
institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional
organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the
vacuum left by Washingtons withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free
markets would become more politicised and, well, less free and major powers
would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically
possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of
this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way.

the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded,

A world without American

hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international
system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into
restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will
so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973).

inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.

Solvency
Prohibiting the use and mandate of backdoors by the US solves
security for the government and privacy for individuals
Wyden 15 [Ron Wyden, the senior United States Senator for Oregon, serving since 1996, and a member of
the Democratic Party. He previously served in the United States House of Representatives from 1981 to 1996. Stop
FBI Backdoors for Tech Products, http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/27858-stop-fbi-backdoors-fortech-products, January 3rd, 2015//Rahul]

Hardly a week goes by without a new report of some massive data theft that has put
financial information, trade secrets or government records into the hands of computer hackers. The best
defense against these attacks is clear: strong data encryption and more secure
technology systems . The leaders of U.S. intelligence agencies hold a different view.
Most prominently, James Comey, the FBI director, is lobbying Congress to require that electronics
manufacturers create intentional security holes so-called back doors that would
enable the government to access data on every American's cellphone and computer, even if it is protected by
encryption. Unfortunately, there are no magic keys that can be used only by good guys for legitimate reasons.

There is only strong security or weak security . Americans are demanding strong security for their
personal data. Comey and others are suggesting that security features shouldn't be too strong, because this could

The problem with this

logic is that building a back door into every cellphone, tablet, or laptop means
deliberately creating weaknesses that hackers and foreign governments can exploit .
Mandating back doors also removes the incentive for companies to develop more
secure products at the time people need them most; if you're building a wall with a hole in it, how much are
interfere with surveillance conducted for law enforcement or intelligence purposes.

you going invest in locks and barbed wire? What these officials are proposing would be bad for personal data
security and bad for business and must be opposed by Congress. In Silicon Valley several weeks ago I convened a
roundtable of executives from America's most innovative tech companies. They made it clear that widespread
availability of data encryption technology is what consumers are demanding. Unfortunately, there are no magic
keys that can be used only by good guys for legitimate reasons. There is only strong security or weak security. It is
also good public policy. For years, officials of intelligence agencies like the NSA, as well as the Department of
Justice, made misleading and outright inaccurate statements to Congress about data surveillance programs not
once, but repeatedly for over a decade. These agencies spied on huge numbers of law-abiding Americans, and their
dragnet surveillance of Americans' data did not make our country safer. Most Americans accept that there are times
their government needs to rely on clandestine methods of intelligence gathering to protect national security and
ensure public safety. But they also expect government agencies and officials to operate within the boundaries of the
law, and they now know how egregiously intelligence agencies abused their trust.

This breach of trust is

also hurting U.S. technology companies' bottom line, particularly when trying to sell services and
devices in foreign markets. The president's own surveillance review group noted that
concern about U.S. surveillance policies can directly reduce the market share of
U.S. companies. One industry estimate suggests that lost market share will cost just the U.S. cloud
computing sector $21 billion to $35 billion over the next three years. Tech firms are now investing heavily in new
systems, including encryption, to protect consumers from cyber attacks and rebuild the trust of their customers. As
one participant at my roundtable put it, I'd be shocked if anyone in the industry takes the foot off the pedal in
terms of building security and encryption into their products. Was Apple's FairPlay worse for the record labels than

Built-in back doors

have been tried elsewhere with disastrous result s. In 2005, for example, Greece discovered that
dozens of its senior government officials' phones had been under surveillance for
nearly a year. The eavesdropper was never identified, but the vulnerability was clear: built-in
wiretapping features intended to be accessible only to government agencies
following a legal process. Chinese hackers have proved how aggressively they will exploit any security
for consumers? Was Apple's FairPlay worse for the record labels than for consumers?

vulnerability. A report last year by a leading cyber security company identified more than 100 intrusions in U.S.
networks from a single cyber espionage unit in Shanghai. As another tech company leader told me, Why

would
we leave a back door lying around? Why indeed. The U.S. House of Representatives

idea was and in June approved 293-123, a bipartisan amendment

that would prohibit the government from mandating that technology companies
build security weaknesses into any of their products. I introduced legislation in the Senate to
recognized how dangerous this

accomplish the same goal, and will again at the start of the next session. Technology is a tool that can be put to
legitimate or illegitimate use. And advances in technology always pose a new challenge to law enforcement
agencies.

The plan bans backdoors entirelythat strengthens cyber

security and revitalizes tech competitiveness
McQuinn, 14 (Alan McQuinn is a research assistant with the Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation (ITIF), The Secure Data Act could help law enforcement protect against cybercrime, 12-19-14,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/227594-the-secure-data-act-could-help-law-enforcement-protectagainst)
Last Sunday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote an op-ed describing the role that U.S. law enforcement should play in
fostering stronger data encryption to make information technology (IT) systems more secure. This op-ed explains

Wydens introduction of the the Secure Data Act, which would prohibit the government from
mandating that U.S. companies build backdoors in their products for the purpose of
surveillance. This legislation responds directly to recent comments by U.S. officials, most notably the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, chastising Apple and Google for creating encrypted devices to
which law enforcement cannot gain access. Comey and others have argued that U.S. tech companies should design
a way for law enforcement officials to access consumer data stored on those devices. In this environment, the
Secure Data Act is a homerun for security and privacy and is a good step towards reasserting U.S. competitiveness
in building secure systems for a global market. By adopting its position on the issue the FBI is working against its
own goal of preventing cybercrime as well as broader government efforts to improve cybersecurity. Just a few years

Creating
backdoor access for law enforcement fundamentally weakens IT systems because it
creates a new pathway for malicious hackers, foreign governments, and other
unauthorized parties to gain illicit access. Requiring backdoors is a step backwards for companies
ago, the Bureau was counseling people to better encrypt their data to safeguard it from hackers.

actively working to eliminate security vulnerabilities in their products. In this way, security is a lot like a ship at sea,

The better
solution is to patch up all the holes in the system and work to prevent any new
ones. Rather than decreasing security to suit its appetite for surveillance, the FBI should recognize that better
the more holes you put in the systemgovernment mandated or notthe faster it will sink.

security is needed to bolster U.S. defenses against online threats. The Secure Data Act is an important step in that

because it will stop U.S. law enforcement agencies from requiring companies to
introduce vulnerabilities in their products. If this bill is enacted, law enforcement will be forced
to use other means to solve crimes, such as by using metadata from cellular providers, call records,
text messages, and even old-fashioned detective work. This will also allow U.S. tech companies, with
the help of law enforcement, to continue to strengthen their systems, better detect
intrusions, and identify emerging threats . Law enforcement, such as the recently announced U.S.
direction

Department of Justice Cybersecurity Unita unit designed solely to deter, investigate, and prosecute cyber

A change of
course is also necessary to restore the ability of U.S. tech companies to compete
globally, where mistrust has run rampant following the revelations of mass government surveillance. With the
criminals, should work in cooperation with the private sector to create a safer environment online.

113th Congress at an end, Wyden has promised to reintroduce the Data Secure Act again in the next Congress.
Congress should move expediently to advance Senator Wydens bill to promote security and privacy in U.S. devices
and software. Furthermore, as Congress marks up the legislation and considers amendments, it should restrict not
just government access to devices, but also government control of those devices. These efforts will move the efforts
of our law enforcement agencies away from creating cyber vulnerabilities and allow electronics manufacturers to
produce the most secure devices imaginable.