Justice Department criticizes online anonymity
Of more relevance to this list, perhaps, is yesterday's testimony of the FBI's Michael Vatis with the bureau's usual crypto-complaints: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/3.htm convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, stored detailed plans to destroy United States airliners on encrypted files on his laptop computer. -Declan http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34659,00.html U.S. Wants Less Web Anonymity by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 3:00 a.m. 1.Mar.2000 PST WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government may need sweeping new powers to investigate and prosecute future denial-of-service attacks, top law enforcement officials said Tuesday. Anonymous remailers and free trial accounts allow hackers and online pornographers to cloak their identity, deputy attorney general Eric Holder told a joint congressional panel. "A criminal using tools and other information easily available over the Internet can operate in almost perfect anonymity," Holder told the panel. Holder said the Clinton administration is reviewing "whether we have adequate legal tools to locate, identify, and prosecute cyber criminals," but stopped short of endorsing a specific proposal. Currently no laws require U.S. Internet users to reveal their identity before signing up for an account, and both fee-based and free services offer anonymous mail, Web browsing, and dialup connections. [...]
Re: Justice Department criticizes online anonymity
At 10:36 AM -0800 3/1/00, Declan McCullagh wrote: Of more relevance to this list, perhaps, is yesterday's testimony of the FBI's Michael Vatis with the bureau's usual crypto-complaints: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/3.htm convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, stored detailed plans to destroy United States airliners on encrypted files on his laptop computer. Unsurprising. And a major reason I have long argued that crypto rights should _never_ be based on the once-popular whines of "show me just one example of a criminal who used cryptography." Using this argument is a recipe for disaster. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34659,00.html U.S. Wants Less Web Anonymity by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Currently no laws require U.S. Internet users to reveal their identity before signing up for an account, and both fee-based and free services offer anonymous mail, Web browsing, and dialup connections. And, critically, the U.S. Constitution provides a solid base that speech need not be linked to a True Name. From the basic language of the First to the recent cases (Talley, IIRC) about anonymous pamphlets. Further, any person is free to incorporate into his writings the excerpted writings of others (modulo copyright laws, which are not relevant for obvious reasons). This means that "anonymous recommenters" are fully protected. "Hey, AnonymousRemailerFoo, look at what AnonymousSenderBar just sent me: "Request-Recommenting-To: AnonymousRemailerBaz. --text"" Of course, an anonymous remailer is just as protected by the First as this hypothetical (and contrived) anonymous recommenter is, but it may help some to see just how far-ranging the implications of banning anonymous speech would be. --Tim May -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Justice Department criticizes online anonymity
At 01:36 PM 3/1/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: Of more relevance to this list, perhaps, is yesterday's testimony of the FBI's Michael Vatis with the bureau's usual crypto-complaints: Michael was the FBI chief I put on the spot at the '98 RSA conference. He proudly pitched how the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center would deter foreign countries from snooping and penetrating the Internet and communication systems of U.S. corporations. However, he quickly fell silent and stammered when I asked how they intended to protect us from the ECHELON activities of our UKUSA partners. --Steve
