US Congress already discussing bans on strong crypto (fwd)
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.
[...]
bye --ed
On Thursday 13 September 2001 19:47, Linux - User wrote:
bye
--ed
Thanks for the pointer to the article. I find the partisin tone taken by the author to be rather unfortunate. I cannot say too much on this subject, but I do have some thoughts and observations. First off, let me say I spent 5 of the past 6 years of my life directly supporting the Pentagon. It was not uncommon for me to meet with people there. Even more commonly, I prepared resources for dear friends who regularly visited the Pentagon. When I heard what had happened I was truly devastated. The faces of all the different people I've worked with over there have been flashing through my head ever since. These are not just, or even primarily, conservative Euro-American males. There are people from all over the world working there. There are hispanic housekeepers who probably came to the US under questionable circumstances, but have been able to demonstrate the kind of trustworthiness required to get a security clearance. There are Black security guards who probably spent their youth committing petty crimes in DC, but came to realize that honesty and integrity would get them farther in life. There are Vietnamese people who fled Saigon when it fell, and their families who followed them when they could. There are military personell of all races, religions, genders, ages, and backgrounds who worked hard and demonstrated the kind of integrity which is awarded by such assignments as Pentagon duty. Many enlisted personnel in the US military come from the poorer communities of our country. Their achievements stand as a symbol of hope for the communities they represent, and as a mark of pride and honor for those communities. Ironically, one of the larger ethnic communities in the Northern Virginia area surrounding the Pentagon is Middle Eastern, Islamic. The attacks on the 11th were not attacks against America, or Americans. They were attacks against Tokyo, Shanghai, Jakarta, and everywhere else people live and work in highly congested areas, and in large buildings. Those were not crimes against Americans, they were crimes against humanity! Now with that being said, I really don't see how the proposed restrictions could be effectively enforced. Not too long ago there were restrictions against the export of "strong" encryption software from the US. One could, however, aquire the same strength encryption software for free from other parts of the world by downloading it off the internet. Anybody who is reasonably sophisticated will be able to produce their own encryption software which does not possess the "back-door" proposed. Beyond that, I don't feel I can comment. On a more general note. It is a sad fact that the behavior of a few individuals in the world can lead to the kinds of restrictions proposed on all of us. The acts of the terrorist criminals who perpetrate crimes such as we are discussing reduce the liberty and freedom of all of us. They also serve to strengthen the very forces they claim to oppose. The more restrictions we have placed on our freedoms in the name of protection, the more opportunity there is for the abuse of the laws and tools developed to enforce the restrictions. -- Open Source Software depends on your support. If you use it, be sure to give something back. http://www.suse.com | http://www.kde.org http://www.mozilla.org | http://www.xemacs.org
On Thursday 13 September 2001 21:02, Steven T. Hatton wrote: > On Thursday 13 September 2001 19:47, Linux - User wrote: > > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html - - -snip - - - Hi: Well put. Thanks for the reminder. Tom
participants (3)
-
Linux - User -
Steven T. Hatton -
tom poe