Senator Backs Down On Crypto Backdoors 169
evenprime writes: " Sen. Judd Gregg (Republican, New Hampshire)
was advocating mandatory backdoors in crypto on Sept. 13. Wired
is now reporting that Sen. Gregg has changed his mind. They say that Gregg's spokesman, Brian Hart, has said: 'We are not working on an encryption bill and have no intention to.'" As Rob Carlson is quoted at the article's close, though: "(Gregg) said he was definitely supporting it. Now he says he's definitely not. Maybe he'll say he's definitely supporting it again."
Definitely (Score:4, Funny)
Our beloved solons are sometimes wrong, but never in doubt.
Re:Definitely (Score:1)
Either this man just felt that he could gain something from his standpoint at a critical time, or is it possible that he got what he wanted? I don't mean backdoors, because that would be public knowlage.. i mean mabie he got something else? Echilon or Carnivore perhaps? Could it be that he stumbled onto something bigger in his field of interest? Polititions are know for making big scenes to overshadow the truth.
What do you think?
Show of Hands (Score:2)
Re:Show of Hands (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't write to Gregg, though I did write to my own congressman and senators. I also sent E-mail to a whole bunch of friends encouraging them to write. (My wife wrote in, and got an E-mail back from the senator saying that yes, he too was strongly in favor of gun rights. Gotta love it when it's so bloody obvious that nobody reads these things.)
I doubt I can take much credit for this, though. I suspect that Gregg was swayed by either public opinion, or, more likely, by the usual suite of deep pockets in Washington who pointed out that these sorts of things would make life very difficult for big campaign donors.
Of course, there's recent rumblings from the RIAA and the MPAA that they think that privacy legislation is their biggest threat; wait for the "defense of copyright" bills which say that any encryption product must pass escrowed keys to the government and to the AAP, RIAA, and MPAA so that they can enforce their copyrights! Terrorism schmerrorism, the greatest threat to the USA is that somebody somewhere might be making copies of USA mass media products!!!!!.
-Rob
Re:Show of Hands (Score:3, Interesting)
Larry Combest, R-TX,(or his staffer) said something to the effect of, "Senator Hollings has not introduced legislation known as the SSSCA to the House yet. When and if he does, I will keep your opinions in mind," in response to the email I sent about the SSSCA.
Encryption controls, even more than roving wiretaps or secret warrants or anything else was the thing I was concerned about most, and put in a 'my vote for you depends on this' line into my correspondance to my reps. I'm glad to see that there was enough pressure to 'force this off the plate'.
Remember that at least some of these people were bright enough to get through various law-schools on their own merits. Corruption and campaign finance-whoring aside, they can be made to understand the issues if they get pounded hard enough often enough.
*raises hand* (Score:1)
I got a response just this week, but it's not clear from the (I assume) canned response whether or not anyone in his office actually recorded my position on the matter.
Oh, well. I'm glad at least one proponent of this ridiculous position is backing off a bit.
Re:Show of Hands (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes you've gotta relate to them on the lowest common denomenator.
Re:Show of Hands (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Show of Hands (Score:1)
Also I managed to get about 10 minutes of airtime on 2 occasions on the Marc Steiner show. For those who don't live in the Baltimore area, that's the noon talk show on our NPR affiliate, WJHU 88.1. The first time I got on, Marc was interested enough to ask me to e-mail hom info on the topic, he thought it would merit a show of it's own. I did, & sure enough, the following week, he did an entire hour of his show on crypto legislation.
Hrm. (Score:2)
Don't you just love politicians who stand by their positions?
Re:Hrm. (Score:1)
Re:Hrm. (Score:1)
Re:Hrm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you just love politicians who stand by their positions?
This sort of comment bothers me. When we heard about this, there was a general cry on Slashdot: "Write letters so they understand how we feel and change their minds!" Well, he's changed his mind (perhaps because he now understands how his constituents feel, perhaps not). But don't we, in cases like this, really want our elected officials to do what we want them to? Maybe he really does have all of our interests in mind, he just needed to be educated?
He's in a no-win situation. If he didn't change his mind, it's: "He's listening to corporations! He's been bought! He's not representing us! Why won't he read our letters and change his mind?". But now that he did, it's: "no-good politicians can't stand for what they believe in!".
So you tell me: which way do you want it?
Re:Hrm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hrm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hrm. (Score:2)
Why he didn't say that exactly I don't know. Maybe Slashdot is denial about becoming a "indepenant tech interest" activist group
I love politicians who change their mind when . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I love politicians who change their mind after being exposed to new information and opinions. Sheesh. Sometimes, you can't win. If you're a politician who won't change your mind, you're "closed-minded." If you're a politician who changes his mind after further consideration, then you're "a shifty weasel without principles."
Politicians face the same challenges as the rest of us. What are "core principles" that should never be compromised and what are "practical principles" that need to be adjusted as situations change and/or new information becomes available?
Re:I love politicians who change their mind when . (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I love politicians who change their mind when . (Score:2)
No they don't. I don't face the challenge of building a large War Chest for the Re-Election.
Re:Hrm. (Score:1, Interesting)
Think of science - Science is _built_ on making a proposition and testing it, and abandoning the proposition if it tests false. i.e. scientists must be prepared to continuously "change their belief", if they're beliefs don't fit reality (the essence of the difference between science and religion).
Why should politics be any different?
will cost us billions (Score:1)
Re:will cost us billions (Score:2)
Perhaps (Score:5, Interesting)
I think if they put a crypto provision in this bill, it would have passed," Froomkin said. "Look at what the administration got."
Froomkin was talking about additional eavesdropping and surveillance powers requested by the Bush administration, which the Senate and the House overwhelmingly voted for last week. That bill is called the USA Act.
He backed off crypto backdoors because the government is going to get enhanced wiretapping powers, etc.
It's a little give and take, but it's nice to see the "give" this time.
Re:Perhaps (Score:1)
Re:Perhaps (Score:2)
> Dang, you think they should have named it something a little less Orwellian,
Here in the UK we have the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act", which in its initial form (among other things) basically forced you to hand over any crypto keys you had access to whenever any government official thought it was convenient, whle making it illegal to mention that your keys had been asked for. It's not _quite_ so bad now (e.g. they've said that putting your key on a revokation list is allowed; they can't ask for a signature only key even if someone does use the public key for encryption instead of verification; if they want a corporate key they have to ask a company officer, not some poor sysadmin who then can't tell his boss what's happened - the government position was still that the Lord's were fussing unnecessarily about civil liberties and there was no need for the changes).
http://www.fipr.org/rip/
My God ... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the first time I can think of where some politico who was talking about some horrible piece of legislation which was opposed in an organized fashion by the open-source community actually changed his mind. Am I being wildly optimistic in thinking that the online petitions, EFF lobbying, etc. made a difference, and might make a difference in the future? Or was there some other factor at work here?
Re:My God ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My God ... (Score:1)
I think Sen. Gregg would do well to remember the NH state motto: "Live Free or Die"
Re:My God (No) (Score:5, Insightful)
When big or medium business is threatened by this style of legislation, you can pretty much count on it to die or be severely watered-down or exempted.
Re:My God ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The MPAA/RIAA pointed out to him that they use encryption, and that there's no way they're going to trust their enforcement/collection division (US Government Inc.) with the keys?
This is presented frivilously, but it's a real possibility. There are plenty of corporate users of encryption who can easily afford to contribute a Mercedes or two to Senator Gregg's campaign fund to get this farcical idea off the table.
Holy heck, there's a nice hobby. Proactively inviting corporate bribes ("campaign contributions") by proposing dumb bills that will hurt them. Much more efficient than waiting for OmniGlobalHyperMegaCorp to come a-knocking on your door.
Re:My God ... (Score:1)
Sounds like extorting the electorate, if you ask me.
Re:My God ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I being wildly optimistic in thinking that the online petitions, EFF lobbying, etc. made a difference, and might make a difference in the future? Or was there some other factor at work here?
Well, yes and no. :) It is very likely that the open source community was able to influence this decision, but in all likelhood, it seems to me that the flames of legislative paranoia seem to be dying out. This potential law reminded me of anti-flag burning legislation that seems to come up every few years or so. Thanks to fervent nationalism, laws like this always get passed in a hurry, but then shot down later on when it is realized how completely unconstitutional and unjust they would be.
I'm happy to see that people are seeming to come back to their senses, and not trying to prey on the fears of the unwitting public.
Re:My God ... (Score:1)
Wonderful! (Score:1)
For now at least.
Encryption vs. "Secure" (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it strange how "Encryption" is bad, but "Secure" is good despite the fact that they are the exact same thing? Criminals encrypt their transmissions but Bankers make "secure transmissions"
Re:Encryption vs. "Secure" (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a great point. Without an encryption system universally (work with me here) accepted as "secure," the Red Cross would not have been able to raise $1,000 a minute at Amazon.
Re:Encryption vs. "Secure" (Score:1)
Isn't it strange how "Encryption" is bad, but "Secure" is good despite the fact that they are the exact same thing? Criminals encrypt their transmissions but Bankers make "secure transmissions"
Why would you think this is strange -- at all? That's like saying, "isn't it strange how 'bankrobbing' is bad, but 'bank withdrawals' are good despite the fact that they are the exact same thing? Criminals rob banks, but brinks trucks make 'legal withdrawals'".
Any laws are designed to deal with illegal uses of tools, rather than legal uses of tools. I'm not necessarily in favor of that legislation, but there's no contradiction here like you seem to believe.
Re:Encryption vs. "Secure" (Score:3, Insightful)
Robbery and making a withdrawl are not the same thing, so it's not quite a valid analogy. However, criminals encrypting their stuff and businesses using secure transmissions ARE the same thing, as far as the tool is concerned. The problem with trying to put a backdoor in encryption schemes, is that once you do, anybody can break in. This will effectively punish the people who use it legally as well as the ones who don't. In your example, this would have the effect of stopping ALL withdrawls (by criminal or customer) because some people are bankrobbers.
The point he's trying to make is that the attitude of "criminals use encrypted transmissions so it must be stopped" will also have the effect of halting "banks using secure transmissions". But the officials who were behind this idea don't understand that.
Re:Encryption vs. "Secure" (Score:2, Insightful)
The point he's trying to make is that the attitude of "criminals use encrypted transmissions so it must be stopped" will also have the effect of halting "banks using secure transmissions".
This is what I find annoying, however: No one has argued banning all encryption. It's like all the fools who think the recently passed legislation defines any hacking as terrorism. The only thing that exceeds the arrogance of these posts is the ignorance.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of the legislation, but advocating marching on Washington to lecture people about what they already know indicates the ignorance of the "marchers", not the legislators.
Re:Encryption vs. "Secure" (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously this is all moot now anyway, but I believe the initial proposal was to put back doors in ALL encryption. How do you put back doors (or ban, to use your words) only the encryption that the bad guys use? This is what the original person who started this thread was trying to point out. The stuff the bad guys use, is the same as the stuff the good guys use. You CAN'T make changes to one without affecting the other.
He was saying that we should somehow make our lawmakers understand this, since it's obvious from the proposed "back door" law that they don't, or that they are at least trying to paint the political picture of encryption being a "bad guy thing".
Re:Encryption vs. "Secure" (Score:3, Insightful)
By using one label in one context and another label in a different context, 'they' (the gov't, the media, the megacorps, etc.) define how you see right and wrong, by manipulating you with emotionally charged words.
So, buying into the idea that it's perfectly OK for people to use emotionally charged words in whatever context they like without calling them on it is at least a partial buy in to the idea that you're going to be a sheeple puppet of the powers that be.
Re:Encryption vs. "Secure" (Score:2)
This is a classic ploy of our government and the corporate media.
For example, whenever an enemy of ours is holding people against their will they are called "hostages," and whenever an ally is holding people they are called "prisoners."
It's also unlikely that you'll ever see positive images of Arabs in the corporate media. Generally we only see them shooting guns into the air.
If you know what to look and listen for you can make a fun game of it. :-)
Rich...
Re:Encryption vs. "Secure" (Score:1)
Only the fact that if I went in and said that they need to provide backdoors to all of the bank's encryption schemes, this wouldn't get 5 minutes on the hill. There would be chaos.
The fact that you post this, and the fact that it gets moderated to +5, indicates the shallowness of the thinking on this subject.
Yes, and so does your reply. Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.
Try not to stall your brain next time, eh?
Moderators: You can downgrade this as flamebait, because it is, kinda. Besides, it is a response to a zero scored comment.
Give Him A Break (Score:3, Insightful)
Give Senator Judd a break! Just because he changed his mind on an issue is not a bad thing. He probably just came to his senses after hearing the facts about the issue. You should be happy. I am. Now if he did actually change his mind again, you might have cause to criticize.
What's far worse are politicians who don't change their mind at all. You might as well dismiss the entire concept of debate.
Criticism, as Slashdot readers have proven time and again, is easy and abundant. Taking a stand is much harder. Changing your stand after hearing the arguments is an important part of democracy and free will.
Re:Give Him A Break (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Give Him A Break (Score:2)
I don't think anyone's complaining about that at all.
Actually I was talking about the original post which said, in part, "(Gregg) said he was definitely supporting it. Now he says he's definitely not. Maybe he'll say he's definitely supporting it again." and some of the early Slashdot replies. But I was unclear about my remark - thanks for pointing that out.
He should have been put more thought into his initial position before announcing it.
Certainly a true statement - and I wish more politicians would do that. However, in the wake of the terrorist attacks, politicians had to take some kind of stand or they would be criticized as "not doing anything". Granted I think this is the fault more of the mob rules politics of today than anyone in particular.
Non-violent resistance (Score:5, Insightful)
This particular story is good news, because it means that representatives do think and can be convinced that they're not right. However there are still things like the SSSCA and the DMCA. I believe these laws are unjust myself. So I disobey them. If I get locked up in jail one day, so be it. But what good is their law if nobody obeys? Let them throw all the nerds in jail. See what happens then.
This is a little crazy, but imagine if all of slashdot turned off all of our servers at home and work. Then we refuse to turn them back on until the unjust laws are repealed.
Yeah, it's crazy, but I just ate a giant pixy stick, and I'm excited because my new computer is coming today.
Re:Non-violent resistance (Score:1)
Well it might work (Score:2)
What keeps this from working is there is no big union. For something like this to work you really have to have basically all the tech workers signed on. Even 60-70% would probably not be enough. Id' say you'd need at least 85% and maybe above 90%. Only then would there be enough immediate squeze to really make people listen. However, most geeks I know including myself have no desire to unionize. There are some benifits, but I think it's not worth it.
Re:Non-violent resistance (Score:1)
Got a percentage count of your support? (Score:2)
(Well, what I'd be proving is that I'm ready for retirement.)
Letter writing (OT but interesting) (Score:4, Interesting)
It's kinda funny. For a long time now people have been saying "if you want your congress rep, senator, MP, friendly dictator, etc. to listen send them snail-mail". These days with the Anthrax scares, I'd say one way to guarantee your rep won't see what you wrote it to send it by snail-mail.
Will this result in more reps using email, and thus more influence for geeks? Or will this just mean phone calls and personal appearances become even more important.
One thing's for sure. If you want to write your rep a letter about something that matters to you -- put down that powdered sugar donut and wash your hands before you do do it!
Re:Letter writing (OT but interesting) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Letter writing (OT but interesting) (Score:5, Interesting)
Take what you can get (Score:3, Insightful)
he was supprised. probably. i guess (Score:3, Funny)
Utter bullshit. (Score:1)
Have you also considered that the security of our nation could be put into jeopardy if, say, a (forgive me for using such a cliche) terrorist were to take advantage of such a backdoor?
Try again next time.
The fun never stops. (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, I'm sure none of us are surprised by this sort of political backpedalling, but it's still funny and sad at the same time.
Judd's actions were (IMHO) mostly a knee-jerk, "let's get some P.R. for our re-election campaign going" fear-based reaction. It's sick to see politicians using something as horrible as 9/11 for their own ends like this, but again, not surprising.
Here's another site discussing this stuff as well: Wartimelibery.com [yass] [wartimeliberty.com].
As for the so-called poll results that were "supporting" his initial efforts to get this stuff rammed through into policy, they're just more evidence that the American public doesn't entirely grasp the full ramifications of this sort of thing. Now, I'm not blaming these people entirely. I'd be *completely* unqalified to talk about heart surgery, although I understand encyption.
Maybe its time for more public efforts aimed at educating the masses about how encryption really works. This might help reduce the position a lot of folks have taken recently that "it's a terrorism tool" and such. Yes, it can be used for evil, but so can the spatula I use to flip my pancakes on the stove. Nobody wants to outlaw cookware.
Anybody got links to projects in action *now* that are trying to accomplish this sort of thing?
Key escrow will never pass anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
The list goes on. Fortunately key escrow is opposed by the very people who run America - large corporations and lobbying groups. And that is why we need to worry about the crap in ATA/PATRIOT instead - because big companies don't care whether or not the government can snoop on anti-WTO activists, detain immigrants forever, or give life sentences to hackers.
-CT
A welcomed relief (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to be weary and vigilant when it comes to the policing any given government conducts on it's own population. More often that not the body being protected (as well all know too well) is that which amounts to the powers that be, all the while it is lightly covered with a transparent veil with big letters reading "public safety."
There may be many things which need to be rethought in the comming months and years. Liberty to speak and do (responsibly) should not be one of them, and I'm glad to see others agree.
a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:4, Interesting)
A college political science professor once made a statement that stuck with me - "the U.S. system of government is intentionally designed to impede the popular will." In this case, it seems to have worked. Our entire system of government is designed to slow things down so that rash and unwise decisions don't get made too quickly. It doesn't always work, but the current crisis is exactly the kind of situation our government is designed to deal with.
The government doesn't always act as quickly as we would like - and that's a good thing.
Re:a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:4, Funny)
You're right, it is much better if the rash and unwise decisions are made after a few weeks of deliberation.
Re:a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:2)
Re:a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:2)
The popular will after 9/11 was to strike back with bloody, military vengeance against the first acceptable target. In this case, the popular will was not slowed down. Is the war a win or a loss for the mythical "system"?
Re:a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:1)
Are you kidding? The popular will after 9/11 in many quarters was to "nuke Afghanistan back into the stone-age and/or make the rubble bounce." Instead of acting immediately, the U.S. President consulted with other government officials, took time to build a coalition, and created a plan of attack that attempts to minimize civilian casualties.
You can argue that you would have preferred different policies, but the U.S. actions in response to 9/11 were not precipitous.
As far as your comment about "bloody, military vengence," you should use words like that more carefully. Carthage experience "bloody, military vengence" at the hands of the Romans. By historical standards, the current campaigns against Afghanisatan do not qualify.
Re:a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:2, Troll)
Only time will tell. We still hear estimates that vary by an order of magnitude regarding the political, military, and civilian lives lost in Iraq in the Gulf War. A couple of weeks after it's "over", nobody really cares what the death toll over there really was.
As far as your comment about "bloody, military vengence," you should use words like that more carefully
Maybe there's a better military definition of bloody vengeance that specifies how many must be killed before it's considered "bloody". I'm not aware of it. As far as the "vengeance" part goes, well, the Cowboy President and his people have spoken and they're coming back with heads on platters. All in the name of proven crimes, mind you.
Just calling it as I see it.
Re:a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:2)
I'll break it down for you:
"bloody" : if blood was spilled, it's bloody, to a greater or lesser degree. So to answer your question... yes, most military killing could be considered "bloody". But now let's be clear that not all military action results in death. I believe the best ones don't.
"vengeance" : if the military punishes someone for something they did wrong, it is correctly called vengeance. Part of what's going on right now is vengeance. But again, not all military action is centered around punishment after-the-fact. I believe that the best things the military do are in defense (proper use of the word) and prevention rather than after-the-fact punishment (ie, vengeance).
Re:a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:2)
In the ideal world, the U.S. military (or some other agency) would have prevented the events of 9/11. Given the fact that those events have occurred, what is the best course of action now?
IMO, all courses of action in this scenario have undesirable consequences. The question is which undesireable consequences are we most willing to live with? By pursuing a military response, the U.S. is going to face:
What would the consequences of a non-military response be? Assume, for example, that the U.S. treated this as a criminal matter - posting rewards, pursuing extradition, etc? Hard to say, but I think that such a course would invite further attacks. The terrorists would say, "See, the impotent, decadent Americans are powerless to defend themselves" and accelerate their attacks, relying on safe havens in places like Afghanistan from which to plan and launch these attacks.
I weep for the innocent casualties of this conflict in both the U.S. and in Afghanistan. But I believe that by acting now, the United States will prevent future attacks, and that in the long run U.S. military actions will save lives. The U.S. should do everything it can to limit civilian casualties, but the U.S. cannot allow terrorists to hide behind civilian populations while they continue to attack equally innocent civilian populations in the United States and the rest of the world.
Re:a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:2)
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. In anything that approaches a democracy, you've got to sell a popular response to important events. It's really really difficult for the American leaders (political and military) to sell a non-military response when it means you have to essentially bite your lip and take the insults. You'd have to just cross fingers and hope that criminal justice will be served in the end and that the net result is less lives lost with the same amount of justice. It's hard to have the patience and faith required to persist with a non-military response. Especially for a superpower like the USA.
Good analysis, by the way.
Re:a win for the U.S. System of Government (Score:2)
I'm sure he still doesn't get it (Score:1)
Whatever his reasons for flip-flopping, I'm sure they have nothing to do with understanding the issues.
Re:I'm sure he still doesn't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
As a current resident of NH, I can tell you that Gregg is actually a pretty smart guy, even if he does get get too much of his information from special interests (but then again, what politician doesn't?). A lot of people think mandatory backdoors for encryption is a Bad Thing, and I bet several of them have told Gregg how they feel about it. An editorial [theunionleader.com] was also run in the Union Leader [theunionleader.com], the state's biggest newspaper, calling Gregg "disappointing." I'm sure there are other examples as well. Try having a little faith in your elected officials instead of blindly insulting them.
Since most slashdotters probably don't read it, (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe he was realized the threat from that bill (Score:3, Interesting)
Nevermind, I know that the paranoid will now say that the NSA can compute any key length anyway. Maybe. Who knows? This is not a threat to me.
Countermeasures exist to foil traffic analysis. (Score:3, Insightful)
For that matter, there's still on surefire way of telling when encrypted data is being moved. One could (for instance) hide it in the output of a RNG (such as one of the web-available atomic random number sources), in a compressed file (recall, the point of compression is to remove entropy -- making the data look as random as possible) or elsewhere. Strong stego also exists, and is certainly publicly available.
In short, this bill would do nothing more than force the developers of strong crypto out of the US (those that still are here) and force the users to get sneakier. It would not, however, be effective in its overall goal.
Something to learn... (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps we can use this to our advantage in other areas where we would like to influence legislation. Rather than lobbying the politicians directly, we simply need to formulate arguments for or against legislation that appeals to Big Money and lobby them instead.
This tactic is unlikely to work with respect to the DMCA and its decendants; I can think of no argument that would persuade the RIAA et. al. that these copyright laws are bad for business. But there are many other areas of online privacy and security which could be of great interest to Big Money if framed in the correct way.
Slashdot readers actually influencing politics? (Score:1)
I haven't gotten any responses back from any congresscritters, save for one form letter from Sen. Inouye of Hawaii. I don't really pretend that my lobbying had any great "straw" effect, but I wonder if Judd's apparent reversal of his stance means that Congress is beginning to react?
But, IMO, the damage is already done. The proposal has been floated, and the idea is still out there. Of course, it's been out there for the last five years or so, ever since the NSA tried to silence R, S, and A from publishing their article in Scientific American (see Levy's Crypto for a full account)
2 Good Things About the Anti-Terrorism Act (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It prevents the RIAA/MPAA from being judge/jurty/executionar and destroying OUR networks or our computers, and imposes severe penalties for such. Unfortunately, it also imposes severe pentalties on individual hackers for minor offenses less serious than a traffic infraction.
2. The government has not gained the right to violate OUR right to privacy/anonymity by forcing us all to use backdoors on our encryption. The same type of thing can be said to be true of anonymity: anonymizing services also won't, by extension, be forced to give the government a backdoor entrance.
On the other hand, unfortunately, there are some troubling concerns with this bill in terms of search & seizure & warrants.
I believe this bill has language in it that would make a warrant granted in one state to tap someone applicable in another. This violates the sovereignty of individual states. If the government wants a nation-wide warrant to tap someone, they should go to federal court.
The other troubling feature of this bill is that it allows the government to legitimately spy on every website we're visiting, and gives them the right to tap into more of our communications without a warrant from a judge.
If the government wants to have the right to tap into OUR communications, they should have to go to a court and get a warrant. If they go to a state court, the warrant should be applicable only in that state; if a federal court, then throughout the nation.
I have no problem with the government monitoring/tappign the online activity of people who'm one could reasonably believe are criminals(i.e., mobsters like John Gotti Jr). However, they should have to go to a court, and at that court, a public defender should be there to defend the accused's rights(the public defendant would simply make the case against a tap, based on available knowledge, without informing the accused that he was being considered for a wire tap -- if the accused were informed, it would be pointless).
So, what about Sen. Judd Gregg? Well, I'll give him credit for recognizing the validity of keeping encryption strong. It is obvious that when he initially called for a ban on backdoorless encryption, he was ignorant of encryption issues and caveats. Now, it is clear that he is more informed and realizes that his formerly proposed idea would not solve any problems, and would violate civil liberties. Of course, he did not say he was ignorant -- no one wants to say they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.
That said, there are two reasons why politicians propose such laws which flagrantly violate civil liberties and solve no problems: (1) They were ignorant of the issues; (2) They simply did not care, and were bought off by some powerful organization(i.e., BSA, RIAA, MPAA, AAA, MS, etc).
If the reason why politiians propose such laws is that they were ignorant of the issues -- as most all of them are on issues of science, intellectual property, and computer technology -- that can be solved by educating them. If the problem is that they did not care and were bought off, that could be solved by: a. Not re-electing them; b. Launching a publicity campaign agaisnt them.
Of course, sometimes the reason why politicians are "ignorant of issues" is because they've been educated by self-interested lobby groups like the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/AAA/MS. These groups are large and rich, and it is natural for politicians to listen to them. In order to counteract that, we need to make politicians aware of the flaws of the positions of such groups, and the utterly self-interested nature of such groups. Any time any of these groups talks about "rights" or "benefitting the public" its bullshit. They have no concern for the public, only their bottom line; as for rights, the only rights they're concerned about are their own(i.e., the RIAA/MPAA seem to support their right to put out sexually explicit movies/songs even if these may reach kids[a right I support], but seem to think that freedom of speech is irrelevant when it comes to linking to a website with DeCSS on it, or sharing files).
Re:2 Good Things About the Anti-Terrorism Act (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously. For a laugh it's always fun to look at the RIAA's "Free Speech" website, where they talk about how explicit lyrics labels are okay but regulation is bad.
They forgot what we use encryption for (Score:2)
It's actually pretty funny
Used to intern for Sen Gregg (Score:2, Interesting)
Senator Gregg is an honorable and intelligent legislator, but he is also human and as we all know to err is human. That's what happened in this case and thankfully he and his staff have realized their error and corrected it. If all legislators were as conscientious and willing to examine and retract imprudent and ineffective positions as Sen. Gregg has proved he is in this case, IMHO this country would be a much better place.
One final note, at least when I interned on the Hill (about 4 years ago) snailmail was much more effective as a public lobbying tool than was email. The volume of e-mail (and faxes) was such that it was impossible for the staff to respond or even really note the contents of all the messages, while just about every peice of snail mail (at least from constituents) was answered. Keep this in mind for future letter campaigns.
Internalizing (Score:2)
Virg
Live Free or Die (Score:2)
Changing a Politicians Mind (Score:1)
Yes Sir, back doors to cryptography do mean your child and animal porn will no longer be secure from snooping media.
Judd Gregg (Score:3, Funny)
IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM, THE WORLD CHANGED. CLIMATE, NATIONS, ALL WERE IN UPHEAVAL...THE INTERNET TRANSFORMED INTO A POISONOUS SCORCHED DESERT, KNOWN AS "THE CURSED EARTH"
MILLIONS OF SLASHDOTTERS CROWDED INTO A FEW MEGA ISPS. ISPS WHERE ROVING BANDS OF HACKERS CREATED VIOLENCE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM COULD NOT CONTROL. LAW AS WE KNOW IT COLLAPSED. FROM THE DECAY ROSE A NEW ORDER. A SOCIETY RULED BY A NEW 31337 FORCE.....A FORCE WITH THE POWER TO DISPENSE BOTH JUSTICE AND PUNISHMENT.... THEY WERE THE POLICE. JURY AND EXECUTIONER ALL IN ONE.
THEY WERE THE JUDDS.
Re:THEY WERE THE JUDDS. (Score:1)
Hmm, I didn't think about that :-)
As with Adobe, the damage is already done. (Score:1)
Is it just me... (Score:1)
"(Gregg) said he was definitely supporting it. Now he says he's definitely not. Maybe he'll say he's definitely supporting it again."
Carlson organized activists in the wake of the proposed bill. That is a Good Thing, but what did he want to happen? Nothing? Or did he want something like this to happen? Here's a tip -- if you get what you want QUIT BITCHING.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:1)
To finish my point. The articles don't seem to state why the Senator changed his mind. Carlson doesn't indicate that he knows either.
Unless proven otherwise, I would assume that he changed his mind based on input from advisors who would be (presumably) more knowledgible on the subject. I can't beleive there is a huge Crypto-lobbist organization that would pay for him to do this flip-flop.
Okay, I'm done now...
Doesn't want to be called liar? (Score:3, Interesting)
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiesce - else appear guilty.
It does not address the real reason, why they want this information - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy.
This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on Carnivore will not protect you.
Incidentally, the United States Department of Commerce and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization know the solution to domain name and trademark problems.
You will find it at WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk]
Well this just makes things clearer (Score:2, Funny)
Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Gregg strode onto the Senate floor and called for a global prohibition on data-scrambling products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Now:
"We are not working on an encryption bill and have no intention to," spokesman Brian Hart said in an interview.
It's obvious what happened. Somebody from the CIA phoned the senator and said "hey dumbass, we already can descramble all the encrypted messages, shut up about it already." At least that's my take on things.
Sen Gregg's constituants (Score:2, Insightful)
So what this means is that Gregg would lose significant numbers of votes in his state if he continued pressing for government snooping of Internet transactions. He's not brilliant, but he's also not as dumb as a brick.
The letters sent to the Clinton Admin did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Behind the scenes a major reason for the change is the considerable change in the standing of Freeh amongst Congress and in particular the GOP. When Freeh was supporting the GOP in their impeachment machinations he was flavor of the month. Since then there have been more and more questions about his effectiveness.
There are several in Congress who will behind closed doors blame Freeh for spending effort on his encryption obsession he should have spent stopping the 9/11 attacks. Even before 9/11 there were many complaints about FBI competence. The witholding of evidence in the Oaklahoma City bomb trials, the Wen Ho Lee incident, renewed questions about Ruby Ridge etc.
With Freeh gone and Mueller now in charge it is very unlikely he would want to resurect a crusade that is strongly associated with a successor now widely considered to have been a failure.
One down (Score:1)
-Shade
Maybe he'll say he's definitely supporting it agai (Score:1)
Is it just me? (Score:2, Funny)
We Got Lucky, This Time (Score:1)
"I think if they put a crypto provision in this bill, it would have passed," Froomkin said. "Look at what the administration got."
You really gotta pay attention these days...
Now who will send him a thank you letter? (Score:2)
Seriously? The Senator has done something it seems people here actually consider reasonable. If you are a constituent of his, why don't you send him your thanks and tell him you did a good job? Lobbyists do not wait for a crisis; they're sending him mail 24/7.
If you want to tell him something additional along these lines (you feel that US crypto export controls only hamper the US, etc.) tell him it as well; he's much more likely to listen to your additional arguments as long as they go along with his current course of action.
Senator Gregg never was drafting a bill... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a reminder that sometimes the sites we trust and love can present biased/inaccurate news. I love Slashdot and Wired but as they say, you can't believe everything you see/read.
Re:well (Score:1)
Judge Dredd
Maybe a stretch, but oh well