WASHINGTON — The intensifying legal battle over encryption between Apple and the Justice Department has all but obscured another more subtle division, the one inside the Obama administration itself.
Driven by competing and sometimes clashing interests about privacy, national security, and the economy, some of the president’s most senior aides are staking out a variety of positions on the issue.
The White House denies there is disagreement over the effort to force Apple to break into the phone used by one of the terrorists in the San Bernardino, Calif., shootings, but the differences on how to deal with the broader questions raised by digital encryption have become increasingly apparent.
The FBI wants the ability to break into smartphones and computers for investigations. The Pentagon and intelligence officials worry that the same techniques could be used by foreign powers or hackers to drain data from phones used by the US government, and that countries like China will demand the same access provided to US law enforcement officials.
The conflicting positions were on display last week. On Tuesday, James B. Comey Jr., director of the FBI, testified in Congress about the need for some kind of government action — he avoided the word “legislation’’ because the White House has specifically said it is not seeking that now — that would guarantee access to law enforcement, no matter how encryption technology evolves.
Less than a day later, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, talking to technologists at an annual computer security conference in San Francisco, struck a very different tone.
“Data security, including encryption, is absolutely essential’’ to the Pentagon, he said. “None of our stuff works unless it’s connected.’’ He also warned against a legislative solution.
A law “written in an atmosphere of anger or grief,’’ Carter said, is “not likely to be the right answer.’’
Later he drove home the point, saying “it would be better to work this out rather than have a law written.’’ And throughout his talk, Carter made it clear that he is more interested in securing data than prying into it.
Administration officials insist the comments do not reflect serious internal disagreements about policy.
They say, for example, that the Justice Department and FBI also support strong encryption — with limits — while the heads of the intelligence agencies, responsible for securing government communications, understand the stresses on those investigating serious crimes.
In a statement, the White House said Friday that “our policy on encryption is clear.’’ But the policy it described delineated the differing positions rather than resolving them.
“The United States government firmly supports the development and robust adoption of strong encryption, which is a key tool to secure commerce and trade, safeguard private information, promote free expression and association,’’ it said. “At the same time, encryption poses a grave challenge for our national security and law enforcement professionals.’’
But officials from the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon describe meetings in the White House Situation Room that go over the same territory, and in the end cannot find a middle ground.
The arguments were touched off 2½ years ago, with the revelations by Edward J. Snowden, the NSA contractor, that the agency had gone to some lengths to undercut encryption.
There was evidence — none confirmed, or discussed by the Obama administration — that the NSA had gained access to the unencrypted communications of servers around the world owned by Google and others to tap into foreign communications.
There were suggestions that it had also tampered with the products of a foreign manufacturer of SIM cards, which go into every mobile telephone, to make it easier to intercept calls and e-mail messages.
The issues were taken up by a presidential commission that included legal scholars and intelligence experts, like Michael J. Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, and Richard A. Clarke, a former senior national security official in the Clinton and Bush administrations who now works in cybersecurity.
Their conclusion was unambiguous in opposing the building of so-called back doors for encrypted devices.
The commission told President Obama that the US government should “not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken or make vulnerable generally available commercial software,’’ and it urged more companies to adapt such systems.
