Got an email today from a customer asking about how BitLocker will affect the ability of law enforcement to conduct forensic analysis of a protected hard drive. Specifically, the person was asking about any back doors that law enforcement could use to bypass the encryption.

The answer is very simple, and I'm sure not what he wanted to hear: there are no back doors. Period.

Think about it for a moment: if there were a back door, would you trust the technology? Of course not. If Microsoft incorporated a mechanism to bypass the encryption, then we'd be weakening the technology for 99.9% of the population to favor the needs of 0.1%. And, surely, the bad guys would find out how to exploit the bypass -- meaning that BitLocker becomes completely useless for you.

Here's a similar example: some people have advocated that cell phones be disabled in certain public places (movie theaters, tunnels, sports stadiums, and so on) because terrorists might use them to remotely trigger bombs. What a bunch of nonsense this is. Communications tools are far more beneficial to the millions of good guys who use them every day (perhaps to save lives?) than to the few bad guys who also use them. Why destroy beneficial utility for everyone just because someone might misuse the technology?

Encryption is amoral. Good guys will use it, and bad guys will use it. We've got to accept that fact. It does no one any good to render beneficial technology useless just because there's the potential that someone might misuse it.