没有后门:调查荷兰对加密的立场

IF 4.1 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Policy and Internet Pub Date : 2020-02-06 DOI:10.1002/poi3.233
J. Veen, S. Boeke
{"title":"没有后门:调查荷兰对加密的立场","authors":"J. Veen, S. Boeke","doi":"10.1002/poi3.233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of end‐to‐end encryption services by terrorists and criminals has led many of the world's security and law enforcement agencies to emphasize the need for exceptional access: a backdoor in encryption. The debate involves governments and private parties, and can be approached through the different prisms of privacy, national security, and economics. This article provides historical background and context on the issue of government access to encryption, before focusing on the Dutch government's position on encryption. In January 2016 the Netherlands was the first country to adopt an official and unambiguous standpoint that ruled out backdoors in encryption. Building on interviews conducted with policymakers in various ministries, the authors elucidate the decision making process and identify key factors that led to the government's position. The impetus provided by Parliament, the role of the NGO Bits of Freedom, and an approach that transcended sectoral interests all contributed. While the unique political context and culture of the Netherlands complicates the application of lessons identified to other countries, the case study does illustrate how a multistakeholder process can lead to a clear standpoint of ruling out backdoors in encryption.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":"12 1","pages":"503-524"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/poi3.233","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Backdoors: Investigating the Dutch Standpoint on Encryption\",\"authors\":\"J. Veen, S. Boeke\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/poi3.233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of end‐to‐end encryption services by terrorists and criminals has led many of the world's security and law enforcement agencies to emphasize the need for exceptional access: a backdoor in encryption. The debate involves governments and private parties, and can be approached through the different prisms of privacy, national security, and economics. This article provides historical background and context on the issue of government access to encryption, before focusing on the Dutch government's position on encryption. In January 2016 the Netherlands was the first country to adopt an official and unambiguous standpoint that ruled out backdoors in encryption. Building on interviews conducted with policymakers in various ministries, the authors elucidate the decision making process and identify key factors that led to the government's position. The impetus provided by Parliament, the role of the NGO Bits of Freedom, and an approach that transcended sectoral interests all contributed. While the unique political context and culture of the Netherlands complicates the application of lessons identified to other countries, the case study does illustrate how a multistakeholder process can lead to a clear standpoint of ruling out backdoors in encryption.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Internet\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"503-524\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/poi3.233\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Internet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.233\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Internet","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.233","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

恐怖分子和罪犯使用端到端加密服务,导致世界上许多安全和执法机构强调需要特殊访问:加密后门。这场辩论涉及政府和私人党派,可以从隐私、国家安全和经济的不同角度进行。本文提供了政府访问加密问题的历史背景和背景,然后重点介绍了荷兰政府对加密的立场。2016年1月,荷兰是第一个采取官方明确立场排除加密后门的国家。在对各部委决策者进行采访的基础上,作者阐明了决策过程,并确定了导致政府立场的关键因素。议会提供的动力、非政府组织“自由碎片”的作用以及超越部门利益的方法都起到了推动作用。虽然荷兰独特的政治背景和文化使将已确定的经验教训应用于其他国家变得复杂,但案例研究确实说明了多方利益相关者程序如何能够导致排除加密后门的明确立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
No Backdoors: Investigating the Dutch Standpoint on Encryption
The use of end‐to‐end encryption services by terrorists and criminals has led many of the world's security and law enforcement agencies to emphasize the need for exceptional access: a backdoor in encryption. The debate involves governments and private parties, and can be approached through the different prisms of privacy, national security, and economics. This article provides historical background and context on the issue of government access to encryption, before focusing on the Dutch government's position on encryption. In January 2016 the Netherlands was the first country to adopt an official and unambiguous standpoint that ruled out backdoors in encryption. Building on interviews conducted with policymakers in various ministries, the authors elucidate the decision making process and identify key factors that led to the government's position. The impetus provided by Parliament, the role of the NGO Bits of Freedom, and an approach that transcended sectoral interests all contributed. While the unique political context and culture of the Netherlands complicates the application of lessons identified to other countries, the case study does illustrate how a multistakeholder process can lead to a clear standpoint of ruling out backdoors in encryption.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.20%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Understanding public policy in the age of the Internet requires understanding how individuals, organizations, governments and networks behave, and what motivates them in this new environment. Technological innovation and internet-mediated interaction raise both challenges and opportunities for public policy: whether in areas that have received much work already (e.g. digital divides, digital government, and privacy) or newer areas, like regulation of data-intensive technologies and platforms, the rise of precarious labour, and regulatory responses to misinformation and hate speech. We welcome innovative research in areas where the Internet already impacts public policy, where it raises new challenges or dilemmas, or provides opportunities for policy that is smart and equitable. While we welcome perspectives from any academic discipline, we look particularly for insight that can feed into social science disciplines like political science, public administration, economics, sociology, and communication. We welcome articles that introduce methodological innovation, theoretical development, or rigorous data analysis concerning a particular question or problem of public policy.
期刊最新文献
Effects of online citizen participation on legitimacy beliefs in local government. Evidence from a comparative study of online participation platforms in three German municipalities “Highly nuanced policy is very difficult to apply at scale”: Examining researcher account and content takedowns online Special issue: The (international) politics of content takedowns: Theory, practice, ethics Countering online terrorist content: A social regulation approach Content takedowns and activist organizing: Impact of social media content moderation on activists and organizing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1