Former FBI Chief Keeps Up Anti-Crypto Campaign 83
ganns.com writes "Former FBI director Louis Freeh is urging lawmakers to limit encryption products that don't include backdoors for government surveillance." Still urging, that is.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Former FBI Chief Keeps Up Anti-Crypto Campaign
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.
They can urge all they want (Score:5, Funny)
Still urging... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still urging... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still urging... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do we even have an FBI? What does the FBI do that individual state police departments cannot? Hunt down aliens?
Re:Still urging... (Score:3, Informative)
Investigate breaches of Federal law across multiple state jusrisdictions. Most law-enforcement agencies' right to investigate a crime, pursue a fugitive, make an arrest, carry a weapon, et c. ends at the town/county/state line. FBI jurisdiction extends across all 50 states, all other U.S. territories, and fifty-two other countries [fbi.gov] (to, of course, a limited extent).
Re:Still urging... (Score:3, Insightful)
This may be easier now that it would have been 2 years ago, given the high-profile virii that have been around the media lately. People may (I say may, not will) realize that this is asking for something to happen. Then again, they may not.
high level goons (Score:1)
Re:Still urging... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Still urging... (Score:2)
You're probably right.
But that aside, I'm a lot more comfortable with a now-unemployed Freeh urging businesses to do something stupid, than I was with the Director-of-the-FBI-Freeh trying to force businesses to do something stupid.
As long as Freeh's got the same First Amendment rights as any of us to make an ass of himself, and businesses that listen to him continue to have their Zeroth Amendment right to take his unsound advice and go bankrupt, I see it as win-win. In a free market, only the clued survive. After seeing the effects of Freeh's domestic security policies on 9/11, and his internal security policies in the form of Robert Hanssen, any company that hires him to advise on crypto policy deserves what it gets.
To be fair, neither 9/11 nor Hanssen were entirely his fault (other folks in other agencies also had to fsck up), but IMHO the culture that he brought to the Agency (a focus on Xtian militia kooks to the point that it prevented anyone from investigating Islamokazi terrorist kooks, and the naive belief that the Cold War was over and that there was no hangover counterintelligence threat from the former USSR) was in part to blame.
(But damn, after writing that, if he ever gets his old job back, I am gonna be so 0wn3d/EM>... ;)
Legality (Score:1, Troll)
It should definitely not be illegal to encrypt messages; however I think the US government should start a public-information campaign to educate the world about appropriate use.
For example; personal, non-secret, communication should not be encrypted. The less encrypted traffic there is on the internet then the easier it will be for the US government to track terrorists using encryption.
Re:Legality (Score:3, Insightful)
And why should "personal, non-secret, communication" be not encrypted? Even if I am just sending my wife a grocery list or sending my aunt a christmas list, I don't want the hacker along the way to be able to read it!
too much encryption? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you encrypt only the sensitive stuff, anyone watching you knows when you do it. If you routinely send encrypted traffic, no one is going to know when one of your messages actually contains something you'd rather not have divulged.
The military does this all the time. They blast all kinds of noise on the band, and only rarely send any actual message, thus keeping their stuff hidden in plain sight.
There was even (in keeping with the latest trend on /.) a science fiction story that used this as a plot vehicle, which told of messages being received from distant planets where usually there was stellar noise. I want to say it was "The Mote in God's Eye", but don't quote me on that.
Re:Legality (Score:4, Insightful)
Outlawing (or discouraging) encryption hurts innocent people far more than terrorist or your favorate evil of the day.
Re:Legality (Score:1)
Re:Legality (Score:4, Funny)
I agree. I've also started flying only in the nude. The fewer clothed passengers there are in airports, the more time security officers can concentrate their searches on those who are potentially hiding something under their clothes.
What is the deal with this guy? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What is the deal with this guy? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:What is the deal with this guy? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What is the deal with this guy? (Score:3, Informative)
I've heard that historically this has been a bone of contention. The FBI would find some criminal using a home brewed encryption scheme, give it to the NSA. The NSA folks would figure it out on their lunch hour and have a good laugh. Absolutely no comparison between FBI and NSA when it comes to crypto skill level. This is from James Bamford The Puzzle Palace, p471 in the Penguin Books paperback edition.
Re:What is the deal with this guy? (Score:3, Interesting)
>
> I've heard that historically this has been a bone of contention. The FBI would find some criminal using a home brewed encryption scheme, give it to the NSA. The NSA folks would figure it out on their lunch hour and have a good laugh. Absolutely no comparison between FBI and NSA when it comes to crypto skill level.
I hate to defend Freeh on crypto policy, but it may be more than just jealousy on his part.
Consider that if the bad guy's homebrew crypto scheme was nontrivial, NSA might do more harm than good to disclose that it had been broken. I can think of a time when an FBI prosecutor saying "We used differential cryptanalysis and broke the guy's DES implementation" on the record, in court, would probably have done a great deal of harm.
If that example doesn't ring any bells, imagine the following hypothetical scenario: An overzealous British sex-crimes prosecutor (FBI) in 1940 comes out and says "Alan Turing's encrypted notes [this is hypothetical, remember] are actually homosexual love letters! A guy at Bletchley (NSA) told us about something called 'Enigma' and voila, it's kinda like what Turing's using in his letters! If Turing's using something this complicated just to conceal his love letters, imagine what strong crypto the Germans must have!"
So perhaps it's not jealousy as much as it's sour grapes. Maybe Freeh's pissed that even when a cryptosystem can be cracked, NSA's too smart to tell him about it :-)
Not quite related to encryption... (Score:4, Interesting)
One piece at a time, the DOJ (which oversees the FBI) is pulling privacy and our rights out from beneath us.
Re:Not quite related to encryption... (Score:2, Troll)
Ummm, huh? If we accept that (with a search warrant approved by a judge) the FBI is able to tap your phone, on what grounds would they not be able to demodulate a fax transmission recorded from that phone?
I mean, if you want we can have a discussion as to whether phone taps (with warrant, of course) should be allowed, I suppose, but if we do allow that (as we have for decades now), it's hard to see how this doesn't follow -- and that's what the appeals court ruled.
In other words, nothing new...
Re:Not quite related to encryption... (Score:2)
They can also stop by the library and by law the libarian has to given them a print out of every book you ever loaned out... and if the libarian informs you that your being investigated, they can goto jail &| be fined...
Ah, america... home of brave, land of the sorta free...
Re:Not quite related to encryption... (Score:2)
The problem is, now that the patriot act has been passed, the FBI doesn't need a search warrant issued from a judge to tap your phone, they just tap your phone and don't tell you.
Umm, no, no they don't -- nothing in USA PATRIOT allows phone taps without a search warrant, where do you get this idea? Please show us any language in USA PATRIOT which you feel gives them this power -- it's just not there.Or save yourself some time and effort, and read the discussion attached to this journal entry [slashdot.org].
They can also stop by the library and by law the libarian has to given them a print out of every book you ever loaned out... and if the libarian informs you that your being investigated, they can goto jail &| be fined...
Another weird misinterpretation. They can subpoena records from a library, with a warrant signed by a judge, but this is something they could already do. A judge can sign a gag order in an ongoing criminal investigation, but this is something they could already do. Neither of these are new with USA PATRIOT, and if you believe otherwise, I welcome you to provide any text in the act backing up your claim.
Ah, america... home of brave, land of the sorta free...
Ah, slashdot... home of the hyperbolically paranoid, land of the black-helicopter types...
(Though I welcome you to provide any example of a nation you claim is more free than the US, if you can.)
This is rediculous. (Score:3, Insightful)
When crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto.
Re:This is rediculous. (Score:1)
a) if only criminals use crypto, then these folks can gather information just by looking at _who_ is sending encrypted mail and to whom;
b) currently we aren't sure about just how good these agencies are at decrypting mail. It may be that they can decrypt good encryption at the moment, but it takes time (say for example, 1 day per message). If loads of people are sending boring encrypted messages that each take a day to decode, the agencies are not going to get very far, but if every message they decode has a value (because only the crooks are using it), then suddenly its worth spending a day on each message.
Red Herring, and LIES (Score:5, Insightful)
Freeh needs to find a whipping boy for the failures of correlating the various peices intelligence datum, which occurred on his watch. Restricting legal access to crypto will only assist in the illicit observation [securityfocus.com] of constitutionally protected speech by private individuals, and destroy what little competitive advantage is enjoyed by U.S. software industries over their counterparts in Israel and India.
The algorithms and the source will not go "back in the can."
Louis Freeh is responsible, in a large part, for the biggest [shodor.org] intelligence [aim.org] failure [pbs.org] in modern [observer.co.uk] recollection [heritage.org]. None of the failure in this effort was for lack of access to encrypted communications [cryptome.org], but from standard failures of organization and communications within the concerned agencies.
The Heritage Foundation - not normally critical of the FBI's mission - has this to say:
Encryption wasn't used in this instance. No evidence for it has ever been found. Freeh has a broader, more insidious agenda here, involving free speech and civil liberties. Unfortunately, the record shows that deep, analytical thinking about these issues is outside the grasp of the majority of America's elected representatives.Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:4, Insightful)
Kids these days...
Actually, the record shows that despite a lot of lobbying by the Clinton administration, spearpointed by Freeh himself, our representatives made the right choice, and said no to key escrow.
In other words, despite the efforts of those like Freeh, the system's worked pretty well at safeguarding people's rights...
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:3, Insightful)
As they say, "That was then, this is now." Personally, I wouldn't expect the same kind of result in the post 9/11 period of hysteria, coupled with the kind of assaults mounted by the Bush administration.
But,
I do hope you continue to be correct...
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:1, Troll)
Care to provide an example of what you consider to be an `assault' on your rights since September 11, much less a `hysterical' one?
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
I suppose this will be a case of "to each his own."
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:1, Troll)
I have done so -- see also the discussion thereof (and attendant challenge) in in this journal entry [slashdot.org].
In short, while there is plenty of room for argument as to whether USA PATRIOT is necessary, you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that a law which merely extends to organized terrorism practices which were already ruled constitutional when Kennedy used them against organized crime forty years ago can be considered to be taking away rights now.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
The real neat part of that new presidential power is that it'll never have to stand up to any sort of constitutional scrutiny since the person will likely never see the light of day again.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
I'm assuming that you are refering to the detention of enemy combatants.
This isn't something that the president can `now' do, this is something that has been a power of the executive branch since the earliest days of our Republic, and which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in the 1942 case Ex Parte Quirin.
For more information on the court's ruling in Quirin see this journal entry [slashdot.org].
While we're on the subject, by the way, not only is this not a new power, your characterization of it is false as well -- far from receiving `no scrutiny', the accused has the right to a court hearing to review the evidence for his designation as an enemy combatant. To pick the most current example, Abdullah al-Muhajir (formerly Jose Padilla) is receiving just such a hearing in a Manhattan courtroom right now. If the judge rules that there is not enough evidence to hold him as a combatant, he will be remanded to civilian custody to be charged with a crime or released.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Care to provide any cite to back up your wild claims?
In point of fact, Mr. al-Muhajir (why do you say `Padilla'? Do you call Muhammad Ali `Cassius Clay'?) is one of only three Americans detained as enemy combatants, the other two being Yaser Hamdi and James Ujaama. None of the three are being held `secretly', nor were any of the three `spirited away' -- Mr. Hamdi was caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan, and the other two were arrested quite publicly, with press conferences and the whole nine yards.
Nor are they `just' being held -- as mentioned above, they are entitled to and have received court overview of their designation as combatants, a term with a specific legal meaning.
So, it seems that there no `countless American citizens' in custody at all -- unless your mathematical ability is so low that you find three to be `countless'.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
I'm not going to spend all day citing websites you will undoubtably declare impure in some form or other. If you are really interested in stories about detainees whose names have been withheld and who are denied lawyers, I'd advise you to check out Human Rights Watch [hrw.org] since there are plenty of articles on the subject.
Beyond that, please keep in mind the differences between a court of law and a military tribunal. Furthermore, I tend to agree with you that we didn't lose any rights in the patriot act that we hadn't theoretically lost decades (in some cases over a century) earlier, but I see no reason for that to make their loss any less lamentable.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
As a point of fact Padilla is easier to type than al-Muhajir. Either distinction identifies the person sufficiently, so I see no need to split hairs.
And `Lew Alcindor' is easier to type that `Kareem Abdul-Jabbar'. This doesn't change the fact that it's rude to refer to someone by a name which they have chosen to give up, and marks an amusing double standard when the media are only willing to refer to converts to Islam by their Arabic name if they happen to be positive figures.
I'm not going to spend all day citing websites you will undoubtably declare impure in some form or other. If you are really interested in stories about detainees whose names have been withheld and who are denied lawyers, I'd advise you to check out Human Rights Watch [hrw.org] since there are plenty of articles on the subject.
No, they don't seem to, actually -- despite the fact that HRW is well known for the bias of their reports (and still have egg on their face for admitting that they were wrong to buy into inflated numbers of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and the West Bank taken from left-wing journalists), they don't seem to point to anything of the sort.
Are you seriously claiming that their are more than the few Americans I've mentioned being held as combatants? If you are, you'll have to provide a source, not just handwave.
Beyond that, please keep in mind the differences between a court of law and a military tribunal.
Yes, of course -- the difference is clearly defined, and as the Supreme Court made clear in Quirin (linked above), some crimes fall under military jurisdiction, including crimes committed during military service and the crime of taking up arms against the US. These aren't kangaroo courts we're talking about, by the way -- they're the same courts which our own soldiers are tried in.
Furthermore, I tend to agree with you that we didn't lose any rights in the patriot act that we hadn't lost decades (in some cases over a century) earlier, but I see no reason for that to make their loss any less lamentable.
There's certainly room to have an argument on those terms, though if you are going to argue that something like the detention of combatants should be made illegal, make that argument -- claiming that it was unconstitutional some time in the past is a dishonest tactic, since this power has existed as long as our Republic has.
Of course, that's a harder argument to make, so people tend to claim that this is something new when arguing against it. This is a dishonest tactic.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
There are indeed numerous (more than a few) Americans being held without trial right now. Whether they are defined specifically as combatants was never my point. You can call them "Enemies of the goat-people" for all I care, the fact remains that a nation of law and order looks pretty bad when they detain ANYONE for long periods of time without accusing them directly of wrongdoing.
None of my arguments of right and wrong have ever depended on what the constitution says or what the supreme courts say. Saying "we haven't ever had this right" doesn't mean the right doesn't exist, it just means we've been living under a tyrannical system for a long time.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Since I'm not talking to Kareem Abdul Jabaar or Jose Padilla or anyone else of the sort I fail to see how the way I refer to him is neccesarily rude. Think the media is biased? Bitch to the media, not to me.
Well and good, but as I said, I find the double standard highly amusing -- and not a little bit hypocritical.
There are indeed numerous (more than a few) Americans being held without trial right now. Whether they are defined specifically as combatants was never my point. You can call them "Enemies of the goat-people" for all I care, the fact remains that a nation of law and order looks pretty bad when they detain ANYONE for long periods of time without accusing them directly of wrongdoing.
Until you provide us any reference to even one such person, you're just blowing hot air, not making a reasoned argument. You keep asserting that there are such people, but why should we take that seriously when you can't provide a single cite...
None of my arguments of right and wrong have ever depended on what the constitution says or what the supreme courts say. Saying "we haven't ever had this right" doesn't mean the right doesn't exist, it just means we've been living under a tyrannical system for a long time.
Obviously, you have the right to believe this nation is oppressive if you wish to -- but you aren't about to convince anyone else of that by making baseless accusations, and resorting to hand-waving and FUD when asked to back them up.
So again, let me repeat my question: are you seriously claiming that more Americans than Messrs. al-Muhajir, Ujaama, and Hamdi are being held without being arrested? And if so, why are you unable to provide even a single reference to back up your claim.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/pakfordet1201.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
So your complaint is what, exactly? That illegal immigrants who are being deported are detained while awaiting deportation?
Leaving aside that this is a pretty drastic step down from the wild and outlandish claims you've made throughout this thread (people being `spirited off' and `held forever' as `combatants'), can you offer any serious argument for why this would not be the case? Can you point to any point in American history when this wasn't the case? Can you point to any, say, European (since you like HRW so much) nation where this isn't the case?
What are you suggesting as an alternative? That illegal immigrants caught in the country should be left completely free here while awaiting deportation? How do you propose keeping them from simply not showing up to be deported?
Or didn't you think this all the way through?
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:1)
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Yes, yes -- very witty. Or not.
Or do you simply realize that to argue that illegal immigrants not be deported would be absurd, and so for lack of an actual position, this is the best you can do?
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:1)
I had assumed you would have been intelligent enough to understand the difference, i see i was incorrect. ( but then again it should have been obvious that you are either stupid, blind or just misguided in your trust of mankind, considering some of your other discussions about the ( non ) reduction of rights in our country. )
If they are illegal, then we should sentence them to labor camps. They committed a crime, so should be punished and retribution paid to the citizens of the state..
We do the same for our citizens that commit a crime, so why do we simply spend the money to send these criminals back?
After a set time of labor to repay our country for the cost we incur, then they can be deported.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
While I'm perfectly willing to argue that the whole concept of "illegal immigrants" is flawed, its not really pertinant here. I could also present you with numerous alternatives to treating human beings like so much cattle to be herded here and there, but competant writers such as Hoppe and Friedman have already done a much better job.
Again, can't you come up with moral arguments? Is everything you believe based merely on "the way its always been done"?
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
You're mighty quick to pile on wild claims again, claims not backed by anything you've posted -- of people being `treated like cattle', held `for months', `without hearing', and so forth, but you still haven't answered the basic question: where do you get off claiming `human rights abuses' when all you've come up with so far is people being detained for the time it takes them to exhaust their appeals and be deported (just as for any other crime -- or did you think people were normally turned loose while awaiting appeal?)?
The fact that you have to go to an source like HRW to get even this much, and even then you feel the need to embellish their claims with unbacked assertions of your own is very reassuring -- if this is all you can come up with, we're doing pretty good, no?
And for the record, something reeks of something you don't like -- `wreaks' is something else entirely (as in `to wreak havoc') -- and if you think detaining something while they appeal their deportation reeks of Stalinist Russia, you know damn little about Stalinist Russia.
Also, while you may think that `conservative' is an insult, and perhaps it is in your private little world, out here in the real world it is not...
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
For added fun, try and guess the edits that resulted in them...
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Hmm. In my haste, I misread your previous post to have also been from jasonditz, and thus read it as a rather thin sort of sarcasm.
Assuming that it was not intended thus, I would like to apologize for my earlier post. That said, I disagree strongly with your proposal, as I feel that it does not meet the criterion of proportionality which is essential to the rule of law.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
However on the idea of compensation for their crimes, dont you agree some restitution should be made?
It costs quite a bit to manage them, deport them, monitor their eventual return.. and they are commiting a crime against the state when they dont follow proper procedures to be here legally.
Perhaps long term labour camp is a bit overkill, but I myself, am getting tired of paying the way for freeloaders all the time.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
At the very least, we need to eliminate the huge incentives we provide that encourage people to immigrate illegally. The fact that in many states, it is easy enough for illegal immigrants to get on the welfare rolls, and that states like California even goes as far as to offer the in state (i.e. taxpayer-subsidized) tuition rates at state schools (among many other benefits) to illegal immigrants is a slap in the face of both citizen and legal immigrant alike.
And don't get me started on the periodic amnesty programs, which tell immigrants that if you come here illegally and stay long enough, you'll get your green card, often faster than people who went through the proper procedure...
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
While there are certainly arguments to be made for ammending the Constitution so that your view of how things should be holds, it can't reasonably be argued that the founders meant for the Constitution to say what you claim it says, or that there is legal precedent for interpreting the Constitution as you do.
Why? Well let's look at those two points: first off, you can't claim that the founders meant what you say, because they themselves, as Presidents, treated enemy combatants as subject to military jurisdiction. The application of courts martial to enemy combatants dates back at least to the Jefferson Presidency, and was also used during the Madison Presidency (yes, that Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights), against French and British port saboteurs. So this is a practice dating to the earliest days of our Republic. I suppose you could argue that you know what Madison meant in writing the Bill of Rights better than he himself did, but that's certainly a claim you'd have to back up.
Secondly, the entire body of precedent backs up the existing practice -- in keeping with the fact that this is not in any way a new practice, the courts have upheld the application of military jurisdiction to enemy combatants again and again. At the heart of the body of precedent in this area is the 1942 case Ex Parte Quirin [slashdot.org] which grew out of circumstances very similar to those under which Mr. al-Muhajir was arrested.
See, what you're ignoring is the phrase before the phrase you hilighted: ``in all criminal prosecutions''. Mr. al-Muhajir is not (yet) being prosecuted, nor is he being held under criminal (as opposed to military) jurisdiction. He is entitled to a review, under the fifth ammendment, of the circumstances of his designation as an enemy combatant, and he is receiving that review as we write, in a federal courtroom here in New York. If the judge rules that there is insufficient evidence to hold him as a combatant, then he will be remanded to criminal jurisdiction, and will be entitled to the provisions of the sixth ammendment. If the judge does not rule thusly, then he will not, and can be held until the end of hostilities before being released (as many of those who had been held in Club Fed (Camp X-Ray, at Guantanamo Bay) are being released, or can be tried under military jurisdiction.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Well, jasonditz, now that we know that John Lee Malvo was an illegal immigrant who had been released without bond pending his hearing, and 10 residents of the DC area have paid with their lives for the policy you are advocating (and three more barely escaped the same fight, and will bear the wounds of their encounters with Messrs. Malvo and Muhammed, are you still so sure about your position?
Really?
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Though i admit i was not real clear earlier on.
( feel free to email if you want to continue this out of a public forum.. i dont mind )
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:2)
Understood -- that was presented as agreement with your and my proposals over jasonditz's silly idea of saying `can't we all just get along? y'all come back for trial in 10 months now, y'hear?', which is what was done in the Malvo case.
Ah (Score:2)
Can't expect too much thinking on a friday...
EFF Analysis of USA-PATRIOT (Score:2)
Chief Concerns
The EFF's chief concerns with the USAPA include:
Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances. USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded.
This means:
Be careful what you put in that Google search.
The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied up what it has done.
Nationwide roving wiretaps.
FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, ISPs or others who are not named in the do have authority under the law to request certification from the Attorney General's office that the order applies to them, but they do not have the authority to request such confirmation from a court.
ISPs hand over more user information.
The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211.
New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance.
One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous terms also expand the scope of surveillance. They are 1) 802 definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC 2331), which raises concerns about legitimate protest activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts; adds to 3 existing definition of terrorism (int'l terrorism per 18 USC 2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC 2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC 2332b(g)(5)(B)). These new definitions also expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, 803, 805).
Overbreadth with a lack of focus on terrorism.
Several provisions of the USAPA have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include:
Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. Sec. 217.
Adding samples to DNA database for those convicted of "any crime of violence." Sec. 503. The provision adds collection of DNA for terrorists, but then inexplicably also adds collection for the broad, non-terrorist category of "any crime of violence."
Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of "exceeding the authority" of a computer used in interstate commerce, causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.
Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allows aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhance punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) include damage to foreign computers involved in US interstate commerce; 6) include state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expand definition of loss to expressly include time spent investigating, responding, for damage assessment and for restoration.
Allows Americans to be More Easily Spied Upon by US Foreign Intelligence Agencies. Just as the domestic law enforcement surveillance powers have expanded, the corollary powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have also been greatly expanded, including: General Expansion of FISA Authority. FISA authority to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the US (and those who communicate with them) increased from situations where the suspicion that the person is the agent of a foreign government is "the" purpose of the surveillance to anytime that this is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.
Increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence. This is a partial repeal of the wall put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including the pervasive surveillance of Martin Luther King in the 1960s. It allows wiretap results and grand jury information and other information collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence information, the latter being a broad new category created by this law.
FISA detour around federal domestic surveillance limitations; domestic detour around FISA limitations. Domestic surveillance limits can be skirted by the Attorney General, for instance, by obtaining a FISA wiretap against a US person where "probable cause" does not exist, but when the person is suspected to be an agent of a foreign government. The information can then be shared with the FBI. The reverse is also true.
Re:EFF Analysis of USA-PATRIOT (Score:2)
Yup, read it on EFF's site, when they put it up. Note:
In other words, what we have here is the EFF jumping on a bandwagon, instead of making any attempt at a thoughtful analysis here.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the proper & more accurate expression is "getting toothpaste back in the tube"
Also, he must think terrorists are idiots. If you knew that Country X required backdoors in crypto products, would you buy a crypto product made in Country X and then use it to hide plans about lauching attacks against Country X? It doesnt take much for terrorists to get their encryption products from more lenient sources - like Canada for example.
And like you said, it's already out there, and ain't goin back.
Frankly - I dont think his urging will go very far beyond discussions like these.
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:4, Funny)
I believe the proper & more accurate expression is "getting toothpaste back in the tube"
I much preffer a quote from Joe Garelli on News Radio - "You can't take something off the Internet. That's like trying to take the pee out of a swimming pool".
-
Re:Red Herring, and LIES (Score:5, Informative)
Cat's already out of the bag (Score:4, Insightful)
As a practical matter, basic encryption needs to be part of a lot of emerging systems. There is so much going on in digital wireless, and it isn't going to stop soon. With processors getting faster each year, you have to up the number of bits in your encryption just to stay ahead of what can be broken with commodity hardware and dumb software (brute force).
The government will always have access to the means to decrypt codes that wouldn't be practical for anyone else. The question becomes whether it makes any sense to limit most uses of crypto to a level between what is easy, and what the government can decrypt with some effort. They don't seem to be doing too well catching people who aren't using any crypto, so what's the point.
IMHO, the only thing that can be accomplished is to hurt commerce and individual privacy. It is often just a matter of setting parameters to set the length of keys and such, and they are going to make companies who do anything with encryption do extra paperwork and such to track it. And god forbid you want to user GnuPG for anything. I'm sure they want to outlaw that completely.
Impact upon Palladium / DRM in hardware (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, if Freeh managed to get a law enforcement backdoor into every crypto device and it applied to Palladium and other DRM systems implemented in hardware, then those systems would be considerably more vulnerable!
Maybe Freeh isn't so bad after all. :-)
Ask Security Services to deny this (Score:4, Interesting)
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - 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 personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET [zdnet.com]: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
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 of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org [wipo.org] !
Backdoors? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't this only produce questionable algorithms? if the gov. can read it why wouldn't somebody else be able to read it too or just abuse the system(corp x says it's fbi connection there's a problem with individual y, fbi agent NOrman CLUE just pops out access for the corp x to y's keys.).
besides, the terrorists can either use already developed 'good' crypto soft or just code their own(oh well, maybe they're trying to turn coding into some thing only sanctioned guilds can do, wait a minute, that would be cool actually, if little perverse).
Intellectual treason is more like it (Score:2)
Can't turn back the clock. :) (Score:4, Informative)
Try to 'urge' those out of my possession.
Re:Can't turn back the clock. :) (Score:2)
Re:Can't turn back the clock. :) (Score:2)
I counter with the aptly-named Rubberhose [rubberhose.org] deniable crypto system.
Re:Can't turn back the clock. :) (Score:2)
This isn't to say that steganography doesn't have it's uses: it's an excellent way to defeat traffic analysis attacks and similar threats. The idea of using steganography is to avoid initial detection/suspicion. If the black helicopter brigade already has you in their sights, however, you are still just as screwed.
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:so what the fbi wants is... (Score:1)
encryption (Score:1)
in encryption algorithms ( d'you remember clipper project?????)is totally irrational and without reason
TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL SECURITY!!!
TO THE HELL WITH THIS SHIT!!!!!
Pleading the fifth on encrypted information (Score:1)
You may have already heard of this, but in my country (The Netherlands), a guy named Volkert van der G. assasinated a leading political figure (Pim Fortuyn). The man was arrested, but he refuses to make any statement or to speak at all, so he cannot be put on trial and this is his right, according to our laws. Am I angry about this, do I think this is unfair? Of course I do, but I expect to have the same rights if I was ever brought in for questioning. You can't change the rights of people, just because the laws are against you, they apply equally well to all people.
Why does this Freeh-man think it is not my right to make sure absolutely no-one but the intended adressee can read my message? Why does he want to force me to place a trust in the government that they can keep the information confidential and the backdoor-keys in their sole posession, which is very unlikely? I'm sure his intentions are to catch bad guys, but bad guys should have the same rights as anyone else, like it or not. I don't want the government to treat me like a criminal just because I use encryption.
There are people who think encryption should not be used in case of personal non-secret communication, but I think that's a load of BS, because encryption is in my view not meant to hide (harmful/secret/sensitive) information, but to enable privacy (just a paradigmshift). So if I want to talk to my mother, and I think what I have to say is nobody else's beeswax, not even the government's, I have the right to use encryption and to be free of any suspicion, don't you think?
Freeh wants you to believe that anything you send over the internet or store on a computer is information the government should have access to, but encryption is the only tool that allows you to safely put your thoughts down. Don't let people like him rob you of this tool and your private thoughts, plead the fifth on encryption!