Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: a different opinion more on : Louis Freeh -- encryption
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:19:35 -0500
From: John Pescatore <John.Pescatore () entrust com> To: "'farber () cis upenn edu'" <farber () cis upenn edu> Hi, Dave - I've got to make an unpopular comment on this never-ending debate: I've had an odd career. I went to work for NSA right out of college and after a few years transferred to the US Secret Service where I was involved in surveillances in counterfeiting investigations. For the past 15 years I've worked in private industry, building secure systems and working for commercial vendors of firewalls and Public Key Encryption technology. I've seen the four corners of the encryption debate: business need for cryptography, vendors desire to sell crypto, the intelligence community need to eavesdrop, and the importance of wiretaps and wireless surveillance to domestic law enforcement. While I believe export controls on crypto don't work and should be gradually abolished (faster than is currently happening) for folks like Jim Warren I have a simple question: should Radio Shack be allowed to sell scanners that can receive on the cellular phone frequencies? After all, the Electronics Communications Privacy Act only prevents innocent and law abiding citizens from snooping on their neighbors - vile terrorists, dope smugglers and motivated stalkers can easily snip a diode or two and listen in to everything. Most criminals are only capable using technology they can buy at the local radio or computer store - popular fiction not withstanding, there aren't a lot of Dr. Nos out there with large laboratories full of technology that the DoD would envy. Export controls don't work but we as a society have decided we do want law enforcement to be able to put away criminals before they commit crimes. Some of the proposed legislation (like SAFE) is probably going in the right direction. Demonizing Louis Freeh is fun but - as with most low hanging fruit - not terribly productive. Even more important to the privacy debate is why we are focusing on cryptography and almost totally ignoring how backward the United States is in protecting citizens' data rights. At a symposium at George Washington University I asked Marc Rotenberg of EPIC why all the various privacy organizations were so focused on crypto, which in reality is mainly a business issue , and almost completely ignoring data privacy, which protects citizens and controls business use of personal data. His only answer was that the government's effort to push the Clipper key escrow approach had galvanized privacy advocates and they hadn't moved on since the demise of Clipper. It is time to move on. John Pescatore johnp () entrust com -----Original Message----- From: Dave Farber [mailto:farber () cis upenn edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 7:30 PM To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com Subject: IP: more on : Louis Freeh -- encryption ... ASK HIM THE DAMN QUESTION! Personal comment -- right on!!! Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:36:01 -0800 To: farber () cis upenn edu From: Jim Warren <jwarren () well com> At 2:10 AM -0800 2/9/99, Dave Farber wrote: ...
This is from Freeh's prepared statement: Terrorists, both abroad and at home, are using technology to protect their operations from being discovered and thwart the efforts of law enforcement
to
detect, prevent, and investigate such acts. Convicted spy Aldrich Ames was told by his Russian handlers to encrypt his computer files. International
drug
traffickers also are using encryption to avoid detection ...
1. Geee. This may be the first time Freeh forgot to also include kiddie porn in his horrifying opening paragraph. I guess his polling showed that terrorists and asnd turncoat CIA agents are more frightening to Congress-critters. 2. Why is it that NO one EVER asks Freeh why he pretends that these vile terrorists, spies, dope smugglers (excluding those who fund U.S. covert ops), etc. -- would suddenly stop using secure crypto, readily available worldwide, if the U.S. outlawed it? Geez ... talk about a "spin doctor"!!! 3. The ONLY people and companies who will be "controlled" by statutory prohibitions against uncrackable crypto are the INNOCENT ones, the LAW-ABIDING citizens and businesses that would discard robust protection for their personal privacy and corporate security if Freeh gets to have his way with us. --jim; jwarren () well com Jim Warren, Contributing Editor & columnist, MicroTimes Magazine Also GovAccess list-owner/editor
Current thread:
- IP: a different opinion more on : Louis Freeh -- encryption Dave Farber (Feb 10)