[116782] in Cypherpunks
Covert Entry warrants requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Broiles)
Fri Aug 20 16:46:22 1999
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990820121627.00acdb80@mail.wenet.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:43:22 -0700
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Reply-To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
The bald-faced ridiculousness of this most recent proposal makes me think
it's the "bad cop" side of the key escrow/key recovery debate - that the
Gummint thinks strong crypto proponents will stop fighting GAK if the
alternative is covert entry to tamper with our computers.
The proposal itself, along with analysis, is online at
<http://www.cdt.org/crypto/CESA/> - in particular, this section may be of
interest -
>"§ 2713.- Obtaining recovery information or plaintext by other means
>
>"(a) In general.-- A federal governmental entity may seek a warrant, issued
>pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to search for and
>obtain recovery information or other information necessary to obtain access
>to the plaintext of data or communications, or to install and use a recovery
>device; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to limit
>the application of chapter 119 of this title.
>"(b) Notice.-- Upon an ex parte showing of good cause the court issuing the
>warrant may postpone the notice required by Rule 41 (d) of the Federal Rules
>of Criminal Procedure for 30 days. Upon additional ex parte showings of good
>cause, the serving of notice may be further postponed. Upon expiration of
>any court orders postponing notice, the governmental entity shall provide
>notice to the person or entity subject to the search or recovery device by
>personal service, or by delivery by registered or first-class mail, and
>shall file a copy of such notice with the court. In the case of a recovery
>device, such notice shall include the period of time during which the
>recovery device was in use and whether the recovery device was successfully
>disabled.
>
>"(c) Assistance.-Upon the request of the applicant, a warrant issued under
>subsection (a) of this section shall direct that a provider of wire or
>electronic communication service, landlord, custodian or other person shall
>furnish the governmental entity forthwith all information, facilities; and
>technical assistance necessary to accomplish the successful execution of the
>warrant unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services
>accorded to the persons affected by the search or installation of a recovery
>device. Any person providing facilities or assistance shall be compensated
>therefor by the applicant for reasonable expenses directly incurred in
>providing the facilities or assistance. The amount of the fee shall be as
>mutually agreed by the governmental entity and the person providing the
>facilities or assistance, or, in the absence of agreement, shall be as
>determined by the court which issued the warrant.
>
>"(d) Nondisclosure..-A warrant issued under subsection (a) shall direct
that--
>
>"(1) it be sealed until otherwise ordered by the court; and
>
>"(2) any person who has been ordered by the court to provide assistance to a
>governmental entity not disclose the existence of any search or recovery
>device, the existence of the investigation, any recovery information, data,
>communications, or other information obtained through the investigation, or
>any techniques or devices used by the governmental entity, to any other
>person, unless and until ordered otherwise by the court.
The media reports thus far haven't discussed that not only do they
contemplate surreptitous entry into citizens' homes, but they expect to be
able to enlist the aid of landlords and providers of wire or electronic
communication services, etc., in that endeavor, and that third parties will
be prohibited from warning the target about the security breach.
Further, it sounds like they're envisioning, in
>"(f) Termination of recovery devices.-To the extent practicable, if the
>system affected by a recovery device remains in use, a governmental entity
>shall disable any recovery device after its use is completed, shall make a
>record documenting such disabling, and shall return the system to its
>previous condition.
.. that they're going to break in again, and steal away their spy toys.
Also, via
>"§ 2717. Protection of confidential information
>"(a) Confidentiality of access techniques.-In any civil or criminal case
>where a party seeks (1) to discover or introduce plaintext that had been
>encrypted or protected by other security techniques or devices, and which
>plaintext had been obtained using government methods of access to such
>protected information, or (2) to discover or introduce evidence or
>information concerning government methods of access to such protected
>information, an attorney for the government (as that term is defined in
>the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), whether or not the government is
>a party, may file, ex parte and in camera, an application requesting that
>the court enter an order pursuant to subsection (b) protecting the
>confidentiality of the technique or mechanism that provided access to that
>evidence or information.
>"(b) Confidentiality orders. -If the court finds that disclosure of a
>technique or mechanism used by a governmental. entity to obtain access to
>information protected by encryption or other security techniques or devices-
>"(1) is likely to:
>"(A) jeopardize an on-going investigation
>"(B) compromise the technique or mechanism for the purposes of future
>investigations;
>"(C) result in injury to any person; or
>"(D) jeopardize public health and safety; or
>"(2) could reasonably be expected to affect the national security;
>then the court shall enter such orders and take such other action as may
>be necessary and appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of the
>technique used by the governmental entity, consistent with constitutional
>principles. A confidentiality order under this subsection entered in a
>civil or criminal case may direct the use of special procedures, as
>appropriate, relating to the admissibility of evidence obtained through
>such technique used by a governmental entity. An interlocutory appeal by
>the United States shall lie from a decision or order of a district court
>with respect to a request for an order under this subsection.
.. they're setting things up so that the defense in a criminal trial - or
the plaintiffs in a civil rights violation suit - won't be able to learn
about how the entry and interceptions occurred.
and, with
>"(c) Nondisclosure of trade secrets.-Notwithstanding any other provision
>of law, trade secrets (as that term is defined in section 1839 of this
>title) disclosed to the government pursuant to section 2518 or 2713 of
>this title, or otherwise disclosed to a governmental entity to assist it
>in obtaining access to information protected by encryption or other
>security techniques or devices, shall not be disclosed by any governmental
>entity unless such disclosure is to another governmental entity, is
>necessary to implement such methods of access, is with the consent of the
>person or entity that owns the trade secret, or is ordered by a court of
>competent jurisdiction pursuant to a request of that governmental entity.
(continued from s. 2717, above), "trade secrets" like encryption algorithms
or other technical details won't be available, so that the government's
evidence will be effectively beyond examination or cross-examination by the
opposing party in court.
To recap, the FBI wants to -
1. Break into our homes secretly;
2. Make third parties help them do it, and prohibit them from telling
us about the break-ins;
3. Make recordings of things we do and say inside our homes;
4. Break back into our homes to recover their recordings and
surveillance tools;
5. Avoid disclosure of their methods and techniques in open court, so
they won't be subject to publicity nor will juries learn what the
government did to get their evidence and their prisoner;
6. Avoid cross-examination and independent expert review of their
methods and techniques
How much longer before they're requesting the authority to use torture and
summary execution when they consider it necessary? Precisely what do they
think they're saving us from that's worse than a large "internal security"
force with no respect for the rule of law? I'll take crime over this shit.
--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles@netbox.com
PGP: 0x26E4488C
