Myth: Law enforcement opposes strong encryption.  

Reality: Law enforcement supports strong, responsibly managed encryption. This encryption should be designed to protect people's privacy and also managed so U.S. tech companies can provide readable content in response to a lawful court order.

Tech companies are in the best position to design and implement solutions for each of their products that maximize security and privacy while ensuring lawful access. 

Myth: Lawful access threatens individual privacy and facilitates mass government surveillance.  

Reality: The U.S. Constitution is designed to balance an individual's right to privacy with the need for lawful access. Prioritizing privacy to the exclusion of law enforcement's need to access evidence creates "lawless" digital spaces for terrorists and criminals. We continue to embrace the rigorous legal standards law enforcement must meet to obtain a warrant before accessing evidence.  

Myth: Lawful access forces U.S. tech companies to create a "backdoor" to encrypted systems. 

Reality: Law enforcement is not seeking a “backdoor” to access information.

We are asking the tech companies to maintain the ability to access readable content and provide us with this content when an independent judge has determined law enforcement has met the required evidentiary standards and has adjudicated privacy interests. Users already trust these companies to maintain exclusive access to their operating systems and the private keys controlling their devices and communications systems.  

Myth: Lawful access threatens privacy and data security.  

Reality: Lawful access is essential to securing citizens' information. Law enforcement values both privacy and security. The inability to receive readable communications and data in response to a lawful court order weakens law enforcement's ability to identify, prevent, and bring to justice those who are doing our citizens harm both online and in the real world.  

Myth: Lawful access stifles innovation and may place the U.S. tech industry at a competitive disadvantage.  

Reality: U.S. tech companies will be at a disadvantage globally if they don't take this opportunity to lead the development of lawful access standards both here and abroad. American technology products and services were popular and broadly adopted worldwide long before warrant-proof encryption became widespread.

We're looking to U.S. tech companies to leverage that same innovative spirit to continue to lead the world in developing effective technical solutions that provide security, promote privacy, and provide for lawful access. Many other countries essential to the global market, including the United Kingdom, Australia, India, and Brazil, have or are seeking similar frameworks to address lawful access.  

Myth: Lawful access places an unreasonable burden on the U.S. tech industry.  

Reality: Society regularly requires companies to ensure their products and services don't harm public safety. Regulations to protect public safety are common across many U.S. industries.

U.S. telecommunications companies already are required to provide readable content in response to a lawful court order. Laws give them flexibility in how to comply, and history has shown these companies can effectively innovate and adapt to meet these requirements.  

Myth: End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is the only way to ensure robust cybersecurity.  

Reality: E2EE carries its own risks and vulnerabilities. No single, standalone method achieves bulletproof cybersecurity.

Robust cybersecurity requires layering multiple, diligently managed security measures and best practices. Malevolent actors can exploit E2E encryption to avoid critical data security scanning, to allow malware inside a network or onto a device, and to evade law enforcement.