New Delhi: 2025 witnessed a sharp increase in both cybercrime and terrorist activities. The Change Healthcare ransomware attack in January affected 19 million Americans, while the Bondi Beach shooting in Australia in December claimed 15 lives and injured 40. Financial losses due to cybercrime in 2025 were estimated at around $10.5 trillion, a significant jump from $3 trillion a decade earlier.
Amid this surge, encryption has become a focal point of debates around national security, law enforcement, and civil liberties. Designed to protect privacy and ensure data security, encryption can paradoxically be exploited by criminals and terrorists to conceal their activities. This dual nature raises critical ethical and legal questions: when public safety is at risk, should law enforcement be granted privileged access to private data, or does this risk undermining individual privacy?
FCRF Launches Premier CISO Certification Amid Rising Demand for Cybersecurity Leadership
Encryption: A double-edged sword
Encryption is essential for modern societies. It plays a key role in securing financial transactions, patient records, public power grids, transport networks, and military command systems. Without encryption, billions of people would be unable to communicate or transact safely.
Yet, it can be misused. Cybercriminals and terrorist networks use encryption to protect their messages, hide plans, and execute crimes. For instance, in ransomware attacks, stolen data is encrypted. This ensures that even if one member is caught, the entire network remains undisclosed.
When encryption backfires on criminals
Ironically, encrypted traffic can also act as a signal for law enforcement. Not all data is encrypted, so persistent IPsec or TLS traffic often draws attention. Once identified, these channels can be monitored, allowing authorities to intercept communications and foil criminal plans.
For example, Europol monitored encrypted platforms like Sky ECC and ANOM, targeting drug trafficking and money laundering gangs. Over 230 suspects were arrested, and €300 million in assets were seized. Similarly, in 2021, the FBI arrested 800 criminals and confiscated 36 tons of drugs, 250 firearms, and $48 million in various currencies.
The civil liberties dilemma
These cases highlight the need for law enforcement to access encrypted data under legitimate circumstances. Some countries have proposed “backdoors” in encrypted systems to ensure public safety.
However, in democratic nations, this has sparked intense debate. Critics argue that granting such access could erode privacy and personal freedoms. Countries like Russia and China already enforce strict controls over encryption. Russia’s Yarovaya Law and China’s Cryptography Law fall under government surveillance frameworks.
The uneasy intersection of security and privacy
Tools like Pegasus spyware show that security solutions can be misused. Pegasus can infect smartphones, accessing messages, calls, locations, and even cameras. While it was deployed for tracking criminals, reports suggest it was also used to monitor journalists, politicians, and activists.
Finding a solution
The question remains: in the face of rapidly rising digital crime and terrorism, should law enforcement in free countries be allowed to use similar digital tools? If yes, what safeguards can ensure civil liberties are protected?
In situations of severe public safety threats, granting authorities access to encrypted data is essential. However, this must be paired with transparency, independent oversight, and accountability. Encryption acts as both a shield and a vulnerability; the balance between protection and intrusion is defined not by technology itself, but by the transparency and restraint of those who wield it.
