RE: Congress mulls crypto restrictions in response to attacks
Amateur radio was the first casualty after Pearl Harbor. Some criticize the action now, of course. ~Aimee > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Declan McCullagh > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:59 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Congress mulls crypto restrictions in response to attacks > > > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html > > Congress Mulls Stiff Crypto Laws > By Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 1:45 p.m. Sep. 13, 2001 PDT > > WASHINGTON -- The encryption wars have begun. > > For nearly a decade, privacy mavens have been worrying that a > terrorist attack could prompt Congress to ban > communications-scrambling products that frustrate both police wiretaps > and U.S. intelligence agencies. > > Tuesday's catastrophe, which shed more blood on American soil than any > event since the Civil War, appears to have started that process. > > Some politicians and defense hawks are warning that extremists such as > Osama bin Laden, who U.S. officials say is a crypto-aficionado and the > top suspect in Tuesday's attacks, enjoy unfettered access to > privacy-protecting software and hardware that render their > communications unintelligible to eavesdroppers. > > In a floor speech on Thursday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) > called for a global prohibition on encryption products without > backdoors for government surveillance. > > "This is something that we need international cooperation on and we > need to have movement on in order to get the information that allows > us to anticipate and prevent what occurred in New York and in > Washington," Gregg said, according to a copy of his remarks that an > aide provided. > > President Clinton appointed an ambassador-rank official, David Aaron, > to try this approach, but eventually the administration abandoned the > project. > > Gregg said encryption makers "have as much at risk as we have at risk > as a nation, and they should understand that as a matter of > citizenship, they have an obligation" to include decryption methods > for government agents. Gregg, who previously headed the appropriations > committee overseeing the Justice Department, said that such access > would only take place with "court oversight." > > [...] > > Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, a hawkish think tank > that has won accolades from all recent Republican presidents, says > that this week's terrorist attacks demonstrate the government must be > able to penetrate communications it intercepts. > > "I'm certainly of the view that we need to let the U.S. government > have access to encrypted material under appropriate circumstances and > regulations," says Gaffney, an assistant secretary of defense under > President Reagan. > > [...] > > > > - > POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list > You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. > Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ > To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html > This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ > -
Re: Congress mulls crypto restrictions in response to attacks
On Thursday, September 13, 2001, at 01:58 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html > >Congress Mulls Stiff Crypto Laws >By Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >1:45 p.m. Sep. 13, 2001 PDT > >WASHINGTON -- The encryption wars have begun. > >For nearly a decade, privacy mavens have been worrying that a >terrorist attack could prompt Congress to ban >communications-scrambling products that frustrate both police > wiretaps >and U.S. intelligence agencies. > >Tuesday's catastrophe, which shed more blood on American soil than > any >event since the Civil War, appears to have started that process. > >Some politicians and defense hawks are warning that extremists such > as >Osama bin Laden, who U.S. officials say is a crypto-aficionado and > the >top suspect in Tuesday's attacks, enjoy unfettered access to >privacy-protecting software and hardware that render their >communications unintelligible to eavesdroppers. > >In a floor speech on Thursday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) >called for a global prohibition on encryption products without >backdoors for government surveillance. This is the main reason it is ESSENTIAL that the "rest of the world" NOT (repeat NOT) support the U.S. in their upcoming actions against the likely WTC terrorists. If Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the Arab countries, and of course the European nations "sign on," this will truly usher in a New World Order. Strong crypto will be banned so quickly our heads will spin (those of us not already arrested and dealt with). I have no idea how to derail this freight train that is beginning to gather speed. Dark times are coming. I'll bet a complete ban on strong, unescrowed crypto is passed in all European countries, Russia, China, Japan, and the U.S. by, say, December 15th. Congresscriminals are stumbling over their feet in their race to repeal big chunks of the Bill of Rights. For most countries, with no real Bills of Rights, the statists will use this to cement their own power. Dark times. --Tim May
