Mediacheck

Private E-mail Not Hush Hush

Why BC firm gave clients' 'hushmail' to US cops.

By Michael Geist, 27 Nov 2007, TheTyee.ca

Shhhh! sign in profile

Encryption has its limits.

This past September, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency launched "Operation Raw Deal," an initiative that targeted people purchasing raw steroid materials through the Internet from China and repackaging the steroids as drugs for domestic sale. Tyler Strumbo, a 23-year-old California resident, was among the 124 people arrested.

The Strumbo case is of particular interest because of an important Canadian connection. The foundation of the DEA's case rested on hundreds of encrypted e-mails stored on the computer servers of Hush Communications, a company based in Vancouver. A British Columbia court ordered the company to decrypt the e-mails and to send them to the U.S. law enforcement officials. Faced with a valid court order, the company complied, shipping 12 CDs filled with unencrypted personal e-mail to investigators in California.

Hush Communications was founded in 1998 and a year later it unveiled hushmail, a free encrypted e-mail service that allows users to blanket their electronic communications with privacy-protective encryption. Given the openness of standard e-mail, encrypted e-mail can serve many legitimate purposes as people use the technology to restore a measure of privacy to their electronic communications. Those same technologies can be misused, however, since criminals can similarly seek to keep their communications under wraps, thereby thwarting police investigations.

Privacy and crooks

Hush Communications has developed corporate policies that seek to balance the privacy interests of their users with the reality that their services may be used for criminal purposes. While the company has a global customer base, it only accepts court orders focused on specific user accounts issued by the British Columbia Supreme Court. Indeed, company officials note that they receive requests from law enforcement around the world, yet many are abandoned after they learn of the need for Canadian court oversight.

In the Strumbo case, U.S. officials relied on the U.S.-Canada Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, which is used by law enforcement agencies to expedite investigations that run across national borders. Investigators allegedly placed several steroid orders with Strumbo via e-mail and then asked the court to mandate the disclosure of the Strumbo's e-mail correspondence.

Reaction to the case has been sharply divided. Some have criticized the company, arguing that it professes to protect the privacy of its users and that it failed to do so in this instance. Others have expressed support, noting that it has established a reasonable policy that includes notification to users of the potential disclosure risks along with strict court oversight.

Myth of invisible net

More interestingly, the case challenges several myths that have developed about privacy, law enforcement, and the Internet. First, the use of the MLAT serves as a timely reminder that U.S. law enforcement wields a wide range of investigative tools to compel disclosure of private information held in Canada. While the U.S. Patriot Act has garnered the lion share of attention -- including last year's controversial debate over possible access to Canadian census data -- the reality is that there are multiple mechanisms to force organizations to hand over private information.

Second, the case counters law enforcement claims that it requires additional powers in order to conduct online investigations. Canadian law enforcement officials have lobbied for years for new "lawful access" provisions that would require Internet service providers to install new surveillance capabilities and grant the police new powers to compel ISPs to disclose customer information. Notwithstanding those lobbying efforts, the Strumbo case provides a compelling illustration of the effectiveness of the laws already in place.

Third, the case highlights how Canadian companies can navigate the privacy minefield by adhering to two key principles -- insisting on court oversight before disclosing customer information and providing full public disclosure about the privacy protections associated with their services.

Hush Communications has faced some heat from the Strumbo case, yet its approach is a textbook example of how to balance privacy interests with the legitimate needs of law enforcement.

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

8  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Lefty

    4 years ago

    Tools?

    "a timely reminder that U.S. law enforcement wields a wide range of investigative tools to compel disclosure of private information held in Canada"

    while this maybe true most Canadians know nothing of these tools, a reminder of exactly what those tools are would be appreciated.

    While most of our political leaders behave like Quisling's the average Canuck still thinks Canada is a sovereign country.

  • Working Memory

    4 years ago

    Blanket coverage?

    Did they unencrypt email from all their customers, or just specific IPs named in a court-ordered wire-tapping investigation?

  • Doug Alder

    4 years ago

    re: Blanket coverage?

    They only decrypted the mail of that one user.

  • Wilbur the Wild

    4 years ago

    Private email stash

    Why did Hush Communications keep files of their customer emails? Or, if it unencrypted them on the fly and recorded them to CD, why was the customer not informed? This whole thing sounds very fishy. Maybe the company is a CIA sting operation.

  • wally

    4 years ago

    What a web we weave.....

    I'm all over the place regarding web privacy. I would be appalled if an unknown somebody was peeping at my private communications yet I am unwilling to grant carte blanche to any entity, private or public, that seeks to tear down my society for gain. We clearly do not have the right to conduct nefarious activity with impunity. We clearly do not have the right to untrammelled speech. How then do we structure web access and communication so as to maximize freedom but still allow us to apprehend those that seek hide their bad deeds.
    My personal bias is towards complete freedom of the net. Allow all and let sensible people to go about their business or pleasure without restraint. The problem with the concept is that it presupposes a high level of maturity or common sense on the part of individual net users. The concept also works only if government and corporate entities behave themselves. Well, look around. There is a vast amount of material to deny these two ideas and therefore I have come to the conclusion that, because those who seek to harm have far greater motivation and resources than those who seek appropriate access, we absolutely require oversight of the net. I'm disgusted by this conclusion but don't see a reasonable alternative.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    down with any and all secrecy

    Put everything in the open - complete FOI for everyone and by everyone. No more government secrets - no more clandestine corporate deals. If you're doing it in the public forum be prepared to recognize that anything you do or say will (or may) affect others.

    Basic principle of adulthood - accept responsibility for your actions.

    If you're doing something nefarious - don't use the public airways or the internet. As Dylan puts it:

    Quote:
    Well, six white horses that you did promise
    Were fin'lly delivered down to the penitentiary
    But to live outside the law, you must be honest
    I know you always say that you agree
    But where are you tonight, sweet Marie?

    Everyone should assume that someone's looking over their shoulder before they act anyway...it's called conscience.

    The only people not affected by it are crooks and sociopaths.

  • ME2

    4 years ago

    secrecy

    Beyond question, GWest, our gov'ts penchance for secrecy has progressed far, far beyond any real need for it.

    However, in this instance, just as in so many others, modern gov'ts have been ignoring the unwritten conventions concerning openness considered necessary until now for a properly functioning democratic process. I doubt very much that what you and I think will cause them to reconsider. Democracy is the furthest thing from their minds.

    And regarding web secrecy (excluding criminal activities), why bother? What I've posted on these Tyee threads and privately would put me in jail in many countries today, so too if the US Patriot Act, etc, could be applied in Canada, likely here as well. So if our governments continue down their present path, they've got me good, and there's SFA I can do about it.

  • driftwolf

    4 years ago

    Encryption?

    Free and useful encryption is actually relatively easy to obtain and use. You encrypt at your desktop, and it gets decrypted by your recipient. No HushMail middleman and a false sense of privacy needed.

    Unless people start to worry a little more about the privacy of their electronic communications, there will come a day (if it hasn't already) where encryption and other attempts at privacy will be made illegal. The process has already begun in the UK, which is seen to be at the forefront of the attack on privacy.

    So I suggest people encrypt all their mail. All the time. As someone I know says:

    Encryption, use it or lose it.

    Technically, it's not that difficult, although the instructions that accompany these products make seem much more involved than it is. It does require that both sender and recipient are setup for it, but if you communicate regularly with someone it's a setup that only needs to be done once. Just once, for a lifetime of real privacy.

    PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is the most common. Check out http://www.pgpi.org/ for more information.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.