“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”

Harvard recently published a report showing that metadata continues to be unencrypted, and in fact is often the most important form of data since it is the most easily analyzed. As the CIA director clearly understands, weaker encryption puts much of our essential personal information at daily risk, including medical records, banking information, and legal correspondence. Any actions that increase that daily risk by undermining the protection encryption provides harm both our personal and collective security.

Privacy and free expression are core American ideals. The United States Supreme Court has said that “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” The U.S. has a long history of anonymous political speech, and many privacy-enhancing technologies utilize strong encryption. We should not weaken liberty in the name of security, especially not when Americans are more likely to be crushed by their televisions than killed in a terrorist attack.

When the government mandates weaker encryption, companies are forced to create defective products. Why would global markets flock to products that are insecure? For example, the Chinese government says they do not want back doored software in their supply chain, and are moving towards open-source solutions. Such actions shut off huge markets to companies like Apple. An American company required to weaken its products will lose ground in the global marketplace.

Even if we trust our government, there are many other governments in the world with very different ideas on free expression. Many people ask “What if this request is denied, and innocents are killed? Is this abstract notion of ‘privacy’ worth that cost”? This is a false dichotomy. It is not only our government who will demand that phones be decrypted.

Dozens of human rights activists, as well as the brave journalists who cover their struggles could be arrested, tortured, and killed if backdoors can be compelled. There are very real questions about how a U.S. company can balance respecting lawful requests, honoring the right to free expression, and doing business in a global marketplace.