[IP] more on FBI plans new Net-tapping push
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 9, 2006 5:21:57 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: lauren@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on FBI plans new Net-tapping push
Dave,
In fact, David's message provides a clue as to why encryption
controls might be pushed even given all of the obvious reasons why
they're unlikely to be effective against most serious bad guys.
Here's the theory:
Step 1: Implement crypto controls
Step 2: Law-abiding citizens follow the law and don't use strong crypto
Step 3: Go after anyone who still insists on using unapproved crypto
systems. They must be hiding something, right?
This fits perfectly with currently "in vogue" sensibilities.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxx
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC
- International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
- - -
Begin forwarded message:
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@xxxxxxxx>
Date: July 9, 2006 9:58:16 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on FBI plans new Net-tapping push
Brian Randell wrote:
Just because the government *claims* it can't break a given
code ... :-)
Strong end-to-end security requires far more than strong crypto,
anyway.
The code-builders and codebreakers would have us focus attention on
the "strength" of codes rather than the systems-scale problems that
create vulnerabilities.
When the FBI does its net-tapping, who has evaluated whether the
inferences it will draw will make us safer?
The Tennant statement that WMD was a "slam dunk" case should give
pause to anyone who thinks that evidence acquired by snooping around
the edges can be used to draw reliable inferences.
Instead, by focusing on wiretapping, what we will see is the
criminalization of words and images, rather than acts and intent, the
criminalization of speculation rather than than of physical evidence,
and the criminalization of association.
When did the standard of proof for invading someone's house go from
"probable cause" to fantasized evidence produced by listening based
on the delusions of a (paranoid-tending) FBI agent?
The fellows recently shot in England during an "intelligence" driven
home invasion by armed police thugs shows that "intelligence" is far
from neutral. Scotland Yard "apologized" for nearly killing two men
in cold blood based on the kind of evidence that the FBI now claims
it needs.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lauren@xxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/