At a conference yesterday at Columbia on whether encryption
will protect privacy -- among panelists Whit Diffie and Steve Levy --
panelist John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff, argued that law
will be needed to combat privacy-trasngressive technology, that
encryption will not be up to the task. Two lawyers from the floor
repeated the point.
Podesta munged the issue of the needs of intelligence and
law enforcement to invade privacy, munged it as if still obeying
secret instructions from those cabals.
Steve Levy reminded that Podesta before working for Clinton was
on the other side of the crypto/privacy wars, aiding I believe Steve
said, EFF. Podesta smiled at Steve's pinprick.
A youngster from the floor observed that in recent years since
the relaxation of crypto export controls not a damn thing had been
done to actually increase the protection of the privacy of individuals,
that on the contrary programs for governmental invasion of privacy
had increased in the US and around the world. Podesta smiled at
the wisdom of babes, techies just don't get reality politics, he appeared
to gloat, with the non-techies smiling at his pretense survivalism.
Podesta noted that the 125th anniversary of the gummed-envelope
was approaching. That that technology is trusted for privacy because
of custom and law backing the custom. He stated that any privacy
technology is going to be workable only if backed by law enforcemcent,
and, not least custom.
He added that the fact that gummed envelopes can be easily opened
by intelligence agencies and law enforcement did not bother people.
Sub rosa, implied: people with nothing to hide.
There were some murmurings of dissent to Podesta's real politic remarks
but except for the young techies, not much.
Indeed, as a newcomer to privacy and encryption conferences, and there
are dozens of them now being sponsored, not much new is being said.
One suspects that a numbing down is going on, to establish a custom
of acceptance that privacy-invasion by government is as inevitable
as death and taxes. Encryption in this view is just food for the gullible
non-techies.
The same is going on with technological means of digital content
protection of all kinds, the techies are being dismissed as too idealistic
in their promises of strong protection, that instead only global law and
treaties will protect intellectual property cartels. As promised by the
cartelish DMCA.
So why would anybody support undermining government power and
authority in the face of such confidence that no way Jose? Plot to undermine
government go to jail, do research to undermine, get clubbed with DMCA.
Just think about undermining, your brainwaves will be logged.
Bamford reports that in the 1960s the USG was picking up Tempest
emanations from Russian encryption machines in Cuba from a
surveillance ship four miles away. And lots more techie stuff that
would terrify a law solves all believer. But then that may be why
Podesta was scared shitless by lawless technology -- having
been briefed on what contemporary shit is going on to surveil
him and everybody else, behind the calls for NSA going deaf
and the FBI pretending to be shocked at its diminished abilities.
