Head of Homeland Security Committee Is Creating a Crypto Taskforce

The sometimes stormy debate on whether encryption is making cops and feds "go dark"—a term given to the claim that encryption technology makes it impossible for cops to intercept or access data—may be entering a new stage.

Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, is trying to put together a wide-ranging special congressional commission to look at how encryption and technology in general is affecting the work of law enforcement, Motherboard has learned.

For more than a year now, a new "crypto war" has been raging in Washington D.C. On one side, law enforcement officials, led by FBI Director James Comey, have been warning that the rise of encryption could lead to a "very dark place" where cops and authorities don't have access to key data to stop and investigate crimes. On the other side, civil liberties groups and technologists have responded arguing that weakening encryption to give law enforcement a way in could backfire and make everyone less secure, and that the FBI's proposed solutions to date are technically impossible.

Now the two sides might get a chance to sit at a table to discuss the issue.

Several sources who work at civil liberties organizations in D.C., as well as two employees of major tech companies confirmed to Motherboard that McCaul, who's recently been outspoken about the dangers of terrorists using encryption, is pushing for the commission. But all the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stressed that the discussion is still in its early stages.

"There have been talks of some type of commission to look at the 'going dark' problem, and having a granular understanding of the 'going dark' problem and how we can solve it," Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) told Motherboard in a phone interview, adding that "there hasn't been anything concrete decided on the make up or the goal of this type of entity."

A spokesperson for the House Committee on Homeland Security declined to comment on the possibility creating a commission, but said McCaul "will be weighing into this debate" during the first State of Homeland Security Address on Monday, December 7, in D.C., where he "will offer his plan for a path forward."

The spokesperson declined to reveal any other details on the plan, but multiple sources told Motherboard that the McCaul camp has been reaching out to tech companies and civil liberties advocates, suggesting the idea of a special congressional commission.

The commission would focus not just on encryption, but also how cops will fight crime in the future, and the role of technology in this fight.

"This is an idea that the chairman is floating out there as a way to have a conversation on this topic," said a member of Congress who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Congressperson said McCaul first mentioned the idea of a special commission during a closed-door roundtable on the topic between Congress members, their staffers and tech representatives on November 17, just days after the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris.

A representative for a large Silicon Valley company said that McCaul's camp is "kind of reaching out to everybody right now." She asked to speak anonymously because she wasn't authorized to talk about these discussions, told Motherboard.

"The way that they're phrasing it is to explore many 21st century security issues," said the representative.

A representative of another big tech company said that for now the commission is just an idea. "I haven't seen real action yet," she said, also on condition of anonymity. "Could totally not happen."

A Microsoft representative said he never heard of a commission until Motherboard reached out for comment. Google, Apple, Twitter, and Yahoo did not respond to a request for comment.

The exact focus of the commission is still being discussed, but various sources stressed that encryption is just part of the discussion, and not the sole focus.

"Sounds like it could work on more broader issues related to technology and really be something that looks at how data security, communications security and device security affect and interact with the world on law enforcement and the intelligence community, but not necessarily focused on encryption," a person that works for a civil liberties advocacy group in Washington D.C. told Motherboard.

It's also unclear what exactly will be the goal of the commission, whether it will be to draft legislation, or publish a series of recommendations. But multiple sources said it doesn't appear that McCaul's intention is to come out with a legislative proposal to ban encryption, or to force tech companies to insert backdoors into their products.

"Encryption is not all bad, it provides security assurances, so we can't forget the good that comes out of encryption during this debate," a Congressional aide with knowledge of the discussions inside the House Committee on Homeland Security told Motherboard.

The only thing that seems to be clear, for now, is that McCaul wants to bring everybody to the table, and he's reaching out to "the best minds," both on the government side, as well as in the tech world. The goal, sources said, is to gather people in academia, such as computer scientists, privacy and civil liberties advocates, and law enforcement representatives.

Steven Bellovin, a well-known computer scientist at Columbia University, said that nobody has reached out to him regarding the commission yet. But he added that an entity like that needs independent technologists and researchers.

"If there aren't technologists as part of the commission, it's not serious," Bellovin told Motherboard in an email. "There are certainly civil liberties issues and law enforcement and intelligence challenges, but from where I sit there are serious technical objections to some of the [law enforcement] proposals—and these have to be answered technically."

In any case, the commission is likely not going to be formally announced until next year, according to the anonymous member of Congress. But the fact that McCaul is working to create it shows that the debate on encryption, and what's been called the second crypto war, is still ongoing.