[118013] in Cypherpunks
Re: W.H. Letter to Hill
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Fri Sep 17 15:02:13 1999
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:40:40 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199909171840.UAA01357@mail.replay.com>
From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
> There is little question that continuing advances in technology
> are changing forever the way in which people live, the way they
> communicate with each other, and the manner in which they work and
> conduct commerce. In just a few years, the Internet has shown the
> world a glimpse of what is attainable in the information age.
<< ...and more than a glimpse at where the gov't is headed.>>
> For Americans to trust this new electronic environment, and for the
> promise of electronic commerce and the global information
> infrastructure to be fully realized, information systems must provide
> methods to protect the data and communications of legitimate users.
<<As opposed to illegitimate users? That isn't very PC, now is it?>>
> Encryption can address this need because encryption can be used to
> protect the confidentiality of both stored data and communications.
> Therefore, my Administration continues to support the development,
> adoption, and use of robust encryption by legitimate users.
<<Here's that pesky "legitimate users" again. Let's put this other
contexts: "My Administration continues to support the development,
adoption, and use of books by legitimate users.*" "My Administration
continues to support the development, adoption, and use of ink by
legitimate users.*"
* legitimate users do not include: drug users, terrorists, dissidents,
communists, wife-beaters, racists, criminals, people who don't like apple
pie, and anyone not possessing a 'legitimate encryption user license'.
("Just fill out this application and take this drug test. What do *you*
have to hide?)
Either *everyone* has an inalienable right to strong crypto, or no one has
a right to crypto. This wishy-washy 'legitimate users' crap is abhorrent.
"Legitimate users of religion," "Legitimate users of newspapers,"
"Legitimate users of pencils". Bullshit.>>
> At the same time, however, the same encryption products that help
> facilitate confidential communications between law-abiding citizens also
> pose a significant and undeniable public safety risk when used to
<< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Awfully strong words. There must be several reports to support this,
eh? Didn't think so.>>
> facilitate and mask illegal and criminal activity. Although
> cryptography has many legitimate and important uses, it is also
> increasingly used as a means to promote criminal activity, such as
> drug trafficking, terrorism, white collar crime, and the distribution
> of child pornography.
<< I hadn't seen white collar crime listed before. Hey! Where's money
laundering?! You forgot that horseman!>>
> The advent and eventual widespread use of encryption poses
> significant and heretofore unseen challenges to law enforcement
<< Poor LEOs.... have to earn that donut now?>>
and public safety.
<< Now I'm baffled. If they are 'heretofore unseen challenges', how is it
that we have this overwhelming epidemic use of crypto by criminals?
Wouldn't all those rampaging terrorists and kiddie porn dealers constitute
some kind of 'immediate threat'? In your own words, they pose an
'undeniable' threat... cant have it both ways. >>
> Under existing statutory and constitutional law, law enforcement is
> provided with different means to collect evidence of illegal activity
> in such forms as communications or stored data on computers. These
> means are rendered wholly insufficient when encryption is utilized to
> scramble the information in such a manner that law enforcement, acting
> pursuant to lawful authority, cannot decipher the evidence in a timely
> manner, if at all. In the context of law enforcement operations, time
> is of the essence and may mean the difference between success and
> catastrophic failure.
<< "may mean". If the *only* evidence you have of a crime is utterly
inaccessible to you...if you cannot decipher evidence...how do you know it
*is* evidence? this makes no sense. 'Uh...he's got some 'crypted files
on his harddrive...therefore he's a suspect'? sorry, that one won't work.>>
> A sound and effective public policy must support the development
> and use of encryption for legitimate purposes but allow access to
> plaintext by law enforcement when encryption is utilized by criminals.
> This requires an
<< A policy like that is neither sound nor effective. It's stupid. And
impossible. >>
> approach that properly balances critical privacy interests with the
> need to preserve public safety. As is explained more fully in the
> sectional
<< "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." >>
> analysis that accompanies this proposed legislation, the CESA provides
> such a balance by simultaneously creating significant new privacy
> protections for lawful users of encryption, while assisting law
<< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ARGH! and what 'significant
new privacy protections' are you offering to that special class of
citizens?? the promise not to break into their house for black bag jobs??>>
> enforcement's efforts to preserve existing and constitutionally
> supported means of responding to criminal activity.
<< How about 'constitutionally PROTECTED' means of privacy? How about
'constitutionally PROHIBITED' police actions? Oh. Sorry.>>
I look forward to working with the Congress on this important national
issue.
<< i bet. >>
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 16, 1999.
