The Big Tech Show
00:20:00 · Adrian Weckler, Barry Ward
[00:20:00] S5: But if if the warnings if the warnings that are coming... That are there now, that if you dilute encryption, you're going to have an irreparable security risk that will absolutely inevitably be exploited. If it does get exploited, how would we feel about doing this? [00:20:18] S4: I'm not talking about diluting or or removing encryption. What I'm saying is that there can be an instance where there are certain limited circumstances in which the state is entitled on a... An objectively, demonstrable basis to look behind that curtain and see what's happening. [00:20:34] S5: But would that would that include... I'm trying to just, in plain English, what we're talking about here. Let's say in a specific case that included the investigation into, let's say, a WhatsApp message. Would that include an order to WhatsApp to be responsible for what was sent between Barry Ward and Adrian Weckler? [00:20:55] S4: No. And I think we need to move away from a situation where we're putting that responsibility for this kind of thing. [00:20:59] S5: But in an order... In in a single judicial case, the one that that you're talking about now, it it it is on... There's no other way to find out from an evidentiary point of view other than to peek behind the curtain of that WhatsApp message. Now you can try and hack the phone. That's... The phone is destroyed, say Mhmm. For argument's sake. And the only way to do it is to issue WhatsApp with an order to break encryption. I mean, is it worth it? [00:21:25] S4: Is it worth it from the point of view of what WhatsApp's reaction might be?
00:21:25 · Barry Ward, Adrian Weckler
[00:21:25] S4: Is it worth it from the point of view of what WhatsApp's reaction might be? [00:21:28] S5: No. In terms of [00:21:29] S4: Of the of the crossing the line. Yeah. I think it's worth from the point of view of crossing the line, but it can't be on the basis that I wanna have a look here. You have to demonstrate that there is a need to cross that line and that there is a there is a security concern or a safety concern or a protection concern to do that. And that you you can put in place a very high bar for that. And the example I used earlier of the search warrant, you can place a higher bar. So for example, at the moment, it must be demonstrable and the judge must be convinced that there is a need for it. You can make that a higher bar. We have different bars for different tests, know, within the courts, for example, different things are assessed different ways. So you can build safeguards into it. But the question comes back to this. When you're balancing the rights of society over individuals, who wins and where is that balance? You can't have a situation where the rights will all go one way either for the individual or for the sacrifice sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of society either. It's about finding that sweet spot in between where you're balancing the two, and I do think you can do that. [00:22:30] S5: I would suggest you respectfully, it's never gonna happen. [00:22:35] S4: Well, that might well be true, Adrian. That doesn't mean that you
00:22:35 · Barry Ward, Adrian Weckler
[00:22:35] S4: Well, that might well be true, Adrian. That doesn't mean that you [00:22:38] S5: I never think it'll never... It's never gonna happen. I actually think when it comes down to it, when all of the positing and the legal jargon that that we all partake in is done, when the simple question is asked, is it worth it? I think most people will think it's not worth it.
00:22:54 · Barry Ward
[00:22:54] S4: They might not, but I think there is an overarching responsibility for government, for the state, for the the services within the state that are there to protect us to protect us. And if the only way they can do that is to cross that Rubicon into a situation where, you know, you're looking behind the curtain. I mean, otherwise, we're saying, well, the guardian should protect us with one tie behind their... Hand tied behind their back. And nor... And and this is always the problem with these things. So I'm a criminal defense lawyer, as you know. People often say to me, how do you defend guilty people? I don't defend guilty people. I represent people who are accused of crimes, and I genuinely believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. But people never think of crime as the potentially falsely accused person. They think of themselves as a potential victim or their child or friend as as the victim, and therefore, they want to come down hard on the accused person. They never think of themselves as being in the seat of the accused person. As the same with this, you're approaching this from the point of view, well, I like my privacy, and I want my privacy. Therefore, there should be no reason why it should be interrupted. But what happens if you're the person that's being targeted by the criminal gang? Do you think then, rather than saying to me, what happens if your information is sold in the dark web, what happens if somebody's coming to get you and the state services can find out about that and protect you?
00:24:08 · Adrian Weckler
[00:24:08] S5: That... That's why I was I was, positing earlier on that this is a difficult choice, and it's one that society has thus far, ruled on in favor of privacy. But you raise a very interesting point, and that is the the the circumstances against which this happened. Like, if we were in Ukraine and we were being attacked the whole time, this might be a different discussion. I... Maybe the rights... The overall rights of encryption, they may or they may not be. They they may be much more important, or they may be less so if if it if it was a case of the survival of a nation. Is it just that our society has not been under such a terrible strain? I mean, we have problems. We have challenges, but we're not under the kind of existential danger where maybe a conversation like this will become more pragmatic.
00:25:00 · Barry Ward
[00:25:00] S4: And there's a part of me that hopes we never face that, obviously, because it... It's not worth it for for, you know, just to establish something like this. And I often say, like, we're incredibly lucky to live in Ireland. We are safe and secure here. It doesn't mean it's perfect. It doesn't mean we're always safe and secure. It doesn't mean there's no crime. But when you look at people... Ukraine is an example close to home, but look at people all over the world and the oppression they face from their governments, from, warlords, from authoritarian elements, from other countries, from cyberattacks, all the rest. And not... Again, not that we've never had a cyberattack in Ireland, but we live in a safe and secure environment in the way that most people in the world don't. And, I'm I'm not suggesting that we should throw that away by saying that everybody has absolute rights to privacy that should never be breached, but nor am I saying that we should throw away the notion of that privacy. I... As I said at the start, I hope privacy is a very important principle that is respected generally in Ireland, but there are some exceptions where the the the good of the the whole or the good of society or the good of the many outweighs the right to privacy of one individual.