Should the government require tech companies to provide backdoor access to encrypted communications for national security purposes?

Yes, as long as the government can provide significant, tangible evidence that all other conventional methods have been exhausted

Yes, only when significant evidence suggests a risk to national security and safety.

Yes, but should have a separate division of the government that is bound by confidentiality and can only use information that clearly indicates criminal activity that’s verified by multiple impartial parties to insure information from communications isn’t being used incorrectly

No, but if the government has undeniable reasons why, then the tech company should be able to give them access to limited parts.

I really think that that the companies should use their gut instinct to know that they’re doing something wrong by not being transparent to the government. It is not transparent if the companies are not telling the government what they are doing and what is really going on around in the company. If the companies don’t be transparent, it would be bad.

Yes but only if there is a reason to do so, any government official who abuses it will face criminal charges

Yes, but there should be strict rules for it's usage and an independent agency to ensure it is used properly

Yes, but the government should only be allowed to se criminals and suspected criminals encrypted communications.

Depends, If the government give evidence that specific individual or individuals have committed a crime in the uk or other countries but they will have to show the evidence.

Yes, but such backdoor access should be available only if the government gets a court order pursuant to law and judicial process allowing access to the encrypted information.

Yes, but for the sole purpose of stopping crime and not to see in on private, domestic conversations.

There should be system where govenrment's interest and weighed and then decision should be made by tech companies or an independent board.

Yes but not for fishing or snooping for criminal evidence, affiliations, political views in private communications. Only when national security risk is suspected.

Impossible to implement without compromise to security

If a company implements a back door into their encrypted service, it renders it effectively useless for ALL users, whether they're under suspicion or not. Anyone with the decryption key can access the system, so it's open to abuse by the company, government or hackers. It all well and good saying "only with a warrant", but this is missing the fundamental point of this issue. It's impossible to build a back door into an end-to-end encrypted service without compromising the privacy of every user.

I think that this is a good idea in theory. But I am worried that it could be potentially abused, therefore I think that it should only be done by court order.

No. But in cases of National Security under Order of a Court Document can access be granted for Specific persons communications only

Yes, but only when there's undeniable evidence the communications are directly linked to a national security threat

Govt should consider whether encrypted messages are appropriate for general public use, also hold all platforms to account for harbouring offenders. Rather than try to legislate, make the penalties for non compliance with anti terror laws/abuse laws/etc. so severe that any company not complying could face real bankruptcy, and criminal charges. Fines are not enough alone.

Yes, under certain clearly defined circumstances. However as with anything connected to technology there would always be the chance that it could be hacked or used for malicious purposes.

Difficult one, I think they should provide back door access but solely for national security purposes

Yes, Provided it is only used for individuals who are wanted by law enforcement and privacy of invasion isn't abused for the rest.

There needs to be a balanced approach that considers the principles of proportionality, legality, and technical robustness when developing any technical tools to assist law enforcement.

Yes, only when there is a high potential of crime being committed by suspects. It should be case by case rather than allowing them general access to anyone's private information.

Yes, but only with stringent restrictions around when such access can be used and with an independent third-party watchdog agency to monitor and report such usage to the public

No, unless stringent ethical, legal, technological, security, practical, and political safeguards are established and consistently adhered to.

In extenuating circumstances of security breaches, terrorism or GDPR breaches. This is a very broad term and so I have given a couple of examples

Not in an unlimited way. National security purposes need to be narrowed down and specified considerably for it to be justified.

Only if reasonable grounds to access (either permission from person or a permit from police / other authority)

Only when sufficent evidence has been given to lead to this position, should the police get a warrent for the information from the company.

This is less a question of national security and more a question around stopping the global exploitation of people facilitated by encrypted communication. This needs a global approach to regulation and changing the global laws on comms tech set up in the 1990s

Only if those companies have contracts with businesses and/or bodies relating to National Security or Government property.

Yes, but only if there is a critical importance, such as immediate threat to life or there had already been deaths.

The users of encrypted communication systems needs to be monitored, not necessarily the content. Need to avoid abuse either way.

No, as it could weaken the overall security and allow access to cyber criminals to steal personal data

Yes but the use of this must be as serious as deploying nuclear weapons. And the security needs to protect individuals. And it should only be used in terrorist activities.

Access should be based on a policy to align Government online surveillance to be restricted and have modern day checks and balance equivalent to historical regulations against eavesdropping on citizens

Yes, but there needs to be some safety measure put in place so that this can only be used in terms of safety threats so it doesn't cross into a totalitarian-like idea

This would need be to significantly transparent in the usage of such tactics with a truly independent and accountable body to regulate its usage

Yes, if there is overwhelming evidence it doesn't compromise the security of the encrypted communications to hackers,spys etc.

Only temporary access for a period where national security is threatened. After the threat has been cleared, go back to restricting government access.

Absolutely not. People just don't understand cyber security is what the modern world is built on and bluntly knowing bad actors would simply create their own applications diversifying and obfuscation the networks making it significantly harder to track, and would simply reduce security for everyone else.

It's a criminal's dream...

Yes, but only monitored by AI, looking for patterns, key words etc. This should ONLY be accessible by humans if it is flagged by the AI

In theory but government authorities need to be much more honest and trustworthy for us to feel safe.

No, they should require tech companies to provide backdoor access to encrypted communications for child protection purposes where there is a reasonable expectation or evidence that children will use or are using the technology.

Only if there is already sufficient evidence to suspect a person, and a message should pop up on their device as it’s happening, freezing what they can do, so they know it is happening but can’t change or delete anything

No because backdoor access would mean they would no longer be encrypted. Tech companies should be made to do more about sexual abuse and use of their tech for terrorism though.

Only when presenting enough evidence to show to a panel of independent people that the threat to national security is real.

Yes, but there should be severe penalties for invasion of privacy if no evidence of wrong doing is found.

It should be implemented in extreme cases when there's a terrorism threat but not be used by police forces or government authorities to spy on or extort people's privacy

Only when evidence exists to suggest national security is threatened; e.g. if someone comes forward to report potential abuse.

Yes, but only with significant evidence suggesting security breeches and only by very highly qualified specialists

Yes, but this should only be used in circumstances where undeniable evidence is available a person or persons are planning an attack

Depends on the severity of the threat to security. Governments should raise requests to the tech companies but also prove how this will not violate GDPR concerns

No, the government should require tech companies to close all backdoor access to encrypted communications for national and public security purposes.

This should only be by Court Order and by a Senior Judge

Yes, but usage of the ability is to be publically reported and highly regulated

Yes, only with sign off by the Secretary of State.

It depends on how stringent the laws to protect people’s identities and private information were. If there’s a strong chance of the information being accessed for reasons outside of very specific circumstances, then I’d say it shouldn’t happen at all. Otherwise it could very easily become a “big brother” scenario.

A third party unaffiliated oversight group should have access to a backdoor to which the government could lodge requests with

Yes but only if measures can be taken to ensure it definitely wouldn't weaken overall security or be exploited by malicious actors.

The government should not have the right to actively monitor its citizens without due cause. However, law enforcement and intelligence should be able to access these records with adequate evidence of certain terrorist or criminal activity, with an independent judge's authorisation and warrant.

Yes. There are MoD DEFCONs that the government use as standard to obtain rights over IP and software - these urgently need adapting to expressly include AI.

If there is a back door for one party, it’s a back door to any other party that discovers it. Back doors should be made illegal in general. This risks the security of users in every case. If a system is encrypted, it should not have a workaround for governments or NGOs

Yes, but it should only be able to be used after a significant amount of evidence is provided to an appropriate approving authority. Safeguards against hackers using that backdoor shoild also be prioritised.

In very specific and heavily regulated circumstances before this could happen there would need to be a huge oversoght on hpw thos was implented.

Yes but with strict reassurance for top level known threats and not witch hunts for possible crimes.

Yes. Although only if users of these tech companies consent to their data being accessed via backdoor access.

This creates vulnerabilities so the government needs to have a policy whereby national security issue concerns can be examined in a collegiate yet compulsory manner with tech companies- as law.

No, but if there is criminal use or materials being shared on the platform there should be protocols in place to ensure accountable of the tech company and for them to be allowed to report evidence to law enforcement when an agreed upon level of harm or risk has been reached.

Depending on the situation it could be helpful but also privacy should be protected as it is a right.

This would depend on the legitimacy of the requested access. The government would need to provide a clear case for requiring any access to communications to prevent GDPR breaches

only if they could guarantee it is failsafe to use

do not let anyone surveil citizens, there is too much chance of that power being abused

It would depend who in "government" was keeping track.

No, as it sets a dangerous precedent for government invasion into private communications. Give a bit, and they take it all, which is why i think if it is there only to be used for criminals, the government will still likely end up just using it to access everybody's anyhow.

Only if they are a foreign-owned company that supply services or technology for Government applications

I'm generally against this due to the risk of it being exploited for malicious purposes but don't have enough overall knowledge or understanding on this subject to form an opinion on it

Subject to major controls to maintain the privacy of ordinary citizens and to prevent commercial exploitation

Only if the companies are suspected to be engaging in criminal activity.

Only where robustly evidenced and demonstrated through the Courts to be in the national interest.

Not having ultimate access enables the Tech Companies to become malign actors without oversight. High level warrants should be required to access with as much privacy oversight as possible but in the end State security must have access.

Only if there is sustained evidence to investigate it for a specific user/conversation

What are your thoughts on sacrificing some privacy for the sake of potentially preventing crime or terrorism?

How would you feel if your personal messages could be read by someone else, even if it was for national security?

Yes, but the UK gov should only be able to access this backdoor in an investigation against a major terror plot. Also, a court order must be given.

If you had to design a system, how would you ensure authorities could fight crime and terrorism without overstepping into unnecessary surveillance?

Would you trust your government with a 'key' to everyone's private messages, under strict regulations and oversight?

Reflecting on historical abuses of power, how do you feel about giving authorities more access to private communications?

Do you believe there's a way to provide security agencies the information they need without violating individual privacy?

If given a choice, would you opt in or out of allowing surveillance access to your digital communications, and why?

How do you balance your right to privacy with the needs of the community for safety and security?

Can you think of a time when you would have wanted law enforcement to have more access to information to solve a crime?

Is there a point where you believe national security measures can go too far in accessing personal information?