[51567] in Cypherpunks
Leahy bill nightmare scenario?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim bell)
Wed Mar 6 23:19:06 1996
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 16:59:36 -0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com, <shabbir@vtw.org>, <PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Cc: nwlibertarians@teleport.com, dnowch2@teleport.com
In case any of you people still think that Leahy bill ostensibly freeing up=
=20
encryption is "progress," the following scenario is provided for your=20
consideration:
"Bob" runs an encrypted remailer. His system forwards mail whose contents=
=20
he cannot read, even if he wanted to. He cannot know from where the=20
messages originated, or where they ended up. He likes it this way, because=
=20
nobody can accuse him of complicity with a (encrypted) message that he can't=
=20
read.
One day, Leahy's bill passes, as described by VTW (and quoted by Peterson):
"=A72804. Unlawful use of encryption to obstruct justice" =20
"Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, =20
impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance=20
to a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States,=20
to an investigative or law enforcement officer shall-..."
I am assuming they fix the obvious error in the phrasing above. =20
"Bob," the operator of the encrypted remailer, receives an email one day=20
which states something like:
"Thanks for the use of your nifty anonymous remailer. Under a different=20
name, I intend to use this remailer (along with others) to transmit child=20
pornography, plot terrorism, and do all of my drug deals. You've made my=20
life so much more secure!"
Bob, alarmed at this note, tries to cover his ass by sending back a message=
=20
asking this person to not do anything illegal on his machine, hoping that=20
this will protect himself. The response is "as long as the system operates,=
=20
it will be used for whatever I want!"
What "Bob" doesn't realize is that the message came from an agent for the=
=20
cops, who now have proof that he is aware that his system will be regularly=
=20
used for illegal purposes. If "Bob" is smart enough, he will realize his=20
quandary, and he has only two choices:
1. Shut the remailer down to prevent such use.
2. Continue to run the remailer, knowing that it is being used for=20
illegalities.
If he should choose the latter, the cops merely have their agent mail some=
=20
kid some child pornography, and use Bob's remailer as the last link in the=
=20
chain. At that point, the "investigation" starts. The cops approach=20
"Bob," and insist that he tell them from where the message came. Naturally,=
=20
however, "Bob" is an honest fellow, and he runs a remailer that doesn't keep=
=20
records.
At that point, Bob is GUILTY of violation of the Leahy bill, because his=20
encrypted anonymous remailer:
1. Uses encryption to thwart message tracing, and thus the "criminal=20
investigation."
2. Bob has already been informed that his system will be used for illegal=
=20
purposes; the cops have the messages to prove he has been told. He's GUILTY=
=20
GUILTY GUILTY, he will definitely lose the system and possibly whatever=20
residence it runs in, and will probably have to pay a huge fine to boot.=20
Now, you may not sympathize with Bob. This doesn't affect YOU, right? =20
RIGHT?!? But let's suppose the cops offer him a DEAL! "Spy for us, keep=
=20
records and forward each and every one of them to us, and we won't prosecute=
=20
you!" Such a deal!
At that point, even an idiot begins to see the problem: Suddenly, you can=
=20
no longer trust ANY anonymous remailer, because the operator might have been=
=20
"stung" already, and he's keeping his system up only to keep his house and=
=20
life savings. One by one, each encrypted anonymous remailer is dealt the=20
same treatment, and pretty soon you can't trust any of them. All the=20
systems run by honest, uncoerced people will go down. Naturally, this=20
treatment will occur in every country that sites anonymous remailers.
So maybe the word gets out, occasionally. At that point, usage of anonymous=
=20
remailers declines, and people willing to risk operating one declines. A=20
few come up which are run by the Feds, which log anyone who attempts to use=
=20
it...
Or am I the only person who can see this, huh? If anybody doubts this=20
scenario, I challenge you to tell me WHY it cannot happen. I am, frankly,=
=20
astonished at anybody who did not immediately see the potential downside to=
=20
this portion of the bill!
Jim Bell, Pessimist and proud of it.
Klaatu Burada Nikto
