[IP] more on FBI plans new Net-tapping push

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: July 9, 2006 5:21:57 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: lauren@vortex.com
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@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
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@reed.com>
> Date: July 9, 2006 9:58:16 AM EDT
> To: dave@farber.net
> Cc: ip@v2.listbox.com
> 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@pfir.org
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/


-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/