Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:04:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Isely <isely@pobox.com> To: "Kenneth P. Stox" <stox@imagescape.com>, Mike Uchima <uchima@pobox.com>, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, <security@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Dean R. Pannell" <dinotrac@dinotrac.com>, Matt Braithwaite <matt@braithwaite.net>, George Isely <dick@pobox.com>, Mark Edel <edel@pobox.com> Cc: Mike Isely <isely@pobox.com> Subject: Re: FW: US Congress already discussing bans on strong crypto Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0109132157360.29509-100000@grace.speakeasy.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0109132122080.29509-100000@grace.speakeasy.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
One other thought: If war really happens here, this may be the first time a real war takes place in this "era" of the internet. That to me suggests we may also see a real live "info war" here. Why, on the cusp of a war like that, would we at that very instant choose to punch a big 'ole back door in the very technology that our own information economy is becoming so quickly dependant upon? Yes, let's volunteer to go back to Enigma and assume that our enemies will follow suit so that we can conveniently eavesdrop on them. Yeah, right. Utter insanity. -Mike On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Mike Isely wrote: > > After feeling absolutely disgusted for an hour I got around to going back > and reading the entire Wired article (also linked by slashdot). So far at > least this appears to be the case of only a single idiot senator proposing > this, with significant dissent from other (hopefully) respected sources. > I'm not sure yet if that would be enough to let cooler heads prevail here. > > One can hope that since it would be impossible for the whole international > community to agree on a single set of backdoor keys (or central escrow > authority), that perhaps this will die just from the practical > difficulties. A central set of keys or central authority after all would > be the only way for the FBI to get at keys for software used by terrorists > in a less-than-friendly country. Not to mention the fact that any 16 year > old can simply implement the code again. > > -Mike > > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Kenneth P. Stox wrote: > > > > > FYI: > > > > -----FW: <4.3.2.7.2.20010913161936.04a17d40@localhost>----- > > > > From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> > > Subject: US Congress already discussing bans on strong crypto > > > > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html > > > > Congress Mulls Stiff Crypto Laws > > By Declan McCullagh (declan@wired.com) > > 1:45 p.m. Sep. 13, 2001 PDT > > > > WASHINGTON -- The encryption wars have begun. > > > > For nearly a decade, privacy mavens have been worrying that a > > terrorist attack could prompt Congress to ban > > communications-scrambling products that frustrate both police wiretaps > > and U.S. intelligence agencies. > > > > Tuesday's catastrophe, which shed more blood on American soil than any > > event since the Civil War, appears to have started that process. > > > > Some politicians and defense hawks are warning that extremists such as > > Osama bin Laden, who U.S. officials say is a crypto-aficionado and the > > top suspect in Tuesday's attacks, enjoy unfettered access to > > privacy-protecting software and hardware that render their > > communications unintelligible to eavesdroppers. > > > > In a floor speech on Thursday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) > > called for a global prohibition on encryption products without > > backdoors for government surveillance. > > > > "This is something that we need international cooperation on and we > > need to have movement on in order to get the information that allows > > us to anticipate and prevent what occurred in New York and in > > Washington," Gregg said, according to a copy of his remarks that an > > aide provided. > > > > President Clinton appointed an ambassador-rank official, David Aaron, > > to try this approach, but eventually the administration abandoned the > > project. > > > > Gregg said encryption makers "have as much at risk as we have at risk > > as a nation, and they should understand that as a matter of > > citizenship, they have an obligation" to include decryption methods > > for government agents. Gregg, who previously headed the appropriations > > subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, said that such access > > would only take place with "court oversight." > > > > [...] > > > > Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, a hawkish think tank > > that has won accolades from all recent Republican presidents, says > > that this week's terrorist attacks demonstrate the government must be > > able to penetrate communications it intercepts. > > > > "I'm certainly of the view that we need to let the U.S. government > > have access to encrypted material under appropriate circumstances and > > regulations," says Gaffney, an assistant secretary of defense under > > President Reagan. > > > > [...] > > > > > > --------------End of forwarded message------------------------- > > > > ---------------------------------- > > E-Mail: Kenneth P. Stox <stox@imagescape.com> > > Date: 13-Sep-01 > > Time: 17:42:41 > > ---------------------------------- > > > > > > -- | Mike Isely | PGP fingerprint POSITIVELY NO | | 03 54 43 4D 75 E5 CC 92 UNSOLICITED JUNK MAIL! | isely @ pobox (dot) com | 71 16 01 E2 B5 F5 C1 E8 | (spam-foiling address) | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0109132157360.29509-100000>