🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 1574@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu, denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu () writes:
>The posting about the proposal I made at the NCSC for key registration
>is essentially correct.  Let me add to it the following:
>
>1.  The government is not taking any action to curb crypto and is...
>
>2.  The reason I made the proposal is because I am concerned that we
>may be facing a major crisis in law enforcement.  I expect many of
>you will say "that's wonderful" but I don't see it that way.  
>Electronic surveillance has been an essential tool in preventing 
>serious crimes such as terrorist attacks and destabilizing organized crime.
>The economic benefits alone are estimated to be in the billions.  This
>issue is not about snooping on innocent citizens but about doing what
>we can do prevent major crimes that could seriously disrupt other
>liberties.  The problem is likely to get even worse if criminals know
>they use the telecommunications systems without any chance of getting
>caught.
>
This sounds like a "The ends justifies the means," argument.  Putting aside
my philosophical objections to such justifictions, I see that the issue is
really a double-edged sword.  You argue that regulation of cryptography
will be a good thing because it will prevent crime and terrorism and that
the cost to individuals in terms of lost privacy will be small.  I'm not
convinced.  And furthermore, with a government that has repeatedly shown
itself to be completely devoid of any sense of ethics (must I provide
examples?), I am loathe to give them the power to read communications I
consider important enough to bother encrypting.

If laws restricting the use of cryptography by the public or similar laws
compromising one's right to privacy are allowed to pass, a dangerous prec-
edent will be set.  How long will it be before we will all be required to
have hidden microphones and cameras in our residences justified by the aid
they will give law enforcement in preventing crime?  Sure, there will prob-
ably be intermediate steps between the regulation of cryptography and cam-
eras in our homes, but who wants to risk going down that path?  Not me!

Unfortunately, given the apathetic nature of most Americans, it is unlikely
that any serious opposition will be able to be mounted against this, or
other threats to our privacy.  And even if people did care, many of them
would agree with Dorothy.  People today seem more concerned with their own
security than with their liberties.  Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They that
can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."  Too bad so few contemporary Americans share
this sentiment.

>3.  My proposal was to register your private key with a trustee, ...
>
>4.  Someone suggested that law enforcement routinely taps without
>court order.  This is an ungrounded claim for which I have never
>seen any evidence.  Regardless, their ability to do this is 
>disappearing with the new digital based technologies.  They need the
>help of the service providers, who in turn ask for court orders.
>Court orders are not all that easy to get as law enforcers have to
>document why other approaches have failed etc.
>
It is as ungrounded as your earlier assertion that electronic surveillance
results in savings of billions of dollars (to whom?) is.

I will first admit that I am unfamiliar with the details of the FBI wiretap
bill they keep trying to get congress to pass, but wasn't it supposed to
give them the ability to wiretap anyones phone (and other forms of elec-
tronic communications) anywhere, anytime, without the consent of the tel-
ephone company?  If this is the case, do you really think a court order
will be waited for before eavesdropping occurs?

>5.  Many people have noted that you could not enforce key 
>registration.  They may be right, but I am not throwing in the towel
>yet.  Let's take phones, which is what law enforcers are most 
>interested in.  Products are emerging that you can attach to your
>phone and that will do DES encryption.  Criminals and everyone
>else are most likely to use commercial products -- easiest to
>get and cheapest.  The products could be designed so key registration
>would essentially be part of the sales process.
>
Let's hope that this will create a market for enterprising individuals
to do business by removing the achilles heel from such products.

>There can be social benefit to government regulation even when 
>regulation is not 100% successful.  None of our laws prevent the
>acts they outlaw.  But this does not mean we should get rid of
>all laws.  
>
Perhaps not.  But I agree with Jefferson when he said, "That government
is best which governs least."

>6.  Some people have said we should not give up our privacy to the
>government.  But the constitution does not give us absolute privacy.
>We are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, but not
>reasonable ones in response to "probable cause" of crime.  In all
>areas of our lives, the government can invade our privacy if they
>have good reason to believe we are engaged in major criminal activity.
>They can break into our homes, our safes, and so on.  Do we really
>want a society where electronic communications cannot ever be broken
>when there is good reason to believe some major threat against society
>is being planned?  
>
I, for one, assert my right to privacy, including my right to encipher
communications to whomever I wish in a form that to the best of my know-
ledge can not be intercepted and decoded by any other than the intended
recipient.

>Thank you for your comments and for encouraging those on the other
>news groups to move over to sci.crypt.  I'll try to keep up with
>this newsgroup and respond to other comments if appropriate, but
>I honestly can't track them all.
>
Thank you for writing, "Cryptography and Data Security."  I'll look
forward to a new edition -- assuming I can legally buy it by the time
it comes out!
---
Bill Dorsey      "Most people mistake law for justice and authority for
RIPEM public      liberty.  You will hear them talk of 'liberty under law,'
key on request    and they are content to see it so deep under the law that
dorsey@lila.com   it is completely obliterated." -- Herbert Spencer