Re: SAFE forum -- remarks of Herb Lin
Folks -- I object to the characterization of my remarks about crime
You're entitled to any spin you wish (see your [...] below). But my original intent was to say the part about "and it is" in any event; unfortunately, the audience started snickering before I got to it. In the future, I will say "Crime prevention ought to be, and is, a part of the FBI's mission", thereby pre-empting premature snickering by an audience pre-disposed to be unfriendly or derisive to law enforcement. Begin personal comment from herb: The "overview and recommendations" document summarizing the report notes that "Input from [..] diverse sources demonstrated to the committee a considerable amount of confrontation and disconnect between interest groups (e.g., information technology vendors, businesses, law enforcement, private individuals, national security) that fail to understand or appreciate the validity of each other's policy needs and interests with respect to cryptography. . . . Public debate based on hyperbole is unproductive. All of the stakes described above -- privacy for individuals, protection of sensitive or proprietary information for businesses, ensuring the continuing reliability and integrity of nationally critical information systems and networks, law enforcement access to stored and communicated information for purposes of investigating and prosecuting crime, and national security access to information stored or communicated by foreign powers or other entities and organizations whose interests and intentions are relevant to the national security and the foreign policy interests of the United Statesare legitimate; informed public discussion of the issues must begin by acknowledging the legitimacy both of information security for law-abiding individuals and businesses and of information gathering for law enforcement and national security purposes." My experience with the FBI and other law enforcement officials is that they are honorable people trying to do a very hard job. You may disagree with them on policy grounds -- indeed, the NRC report does disagree with the Administration in certain important ways -- but in my personal opinion, law enforcement deserves credit rather than censure for trying to anticipate a future problem, You may believe the proposed solution to be inappropriate, but I'd ask those of you who follow the debate to engage it on substantive rather than ad hominem grounds, Many of you in the cypherpunk community have done so, and I applaud such efforts. [End personal comment] herb == On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Herb Lin wrote: prevention > being made with sarcasm. The complete remark was "Crime prevention ought > to be part of the FBI's mission, ... and it is -- ask them, and they acknowledge
that."
OK, sorry, my reading. I'd certainly hate to jeopardize any professional relationships by implying that you'd been poking fun at them on purpose. There's already far too much distrust to go around. As I recall, the sequence went "Crime prevention ought to be part of the FBI's mission [audience snickers, Herb realizes what he just said and smiles]... and it is -- ask them, and they acknowledge that." The best standup comics are the genuine straight men, I guess. To avoid any trouble, I'll be using that line *without* specific attribution from now on. -rich
My experience with the FBI and other law enforcement officials is that they are honorable people trying to do a very hard job.
Very good point. However, their primary representatives are still Louie Freeh, Jim Kallstom (sp?) and a few others who specialize in technologically-inaccurate hype. They have special backdoor access priviledges to Congress which none of us have (at least on the scale with which they can summon). They do NOT have to answer to anyone, except on warm and fuzzy Congressional hearings during which the technical inaccuracy of their words are rarely challenged. I would give a lot to have a public one-on-one discussion/debate with Freeh or Kallstrom. The problem is that they will stick to the obvious sound bites of "child pornographers" and "terrorists" instead of discussing the technical issues. I do agree that, if Freeh and cypherpunks would stop the hyperbole, and start discussing what would help privacy as well as law enforcement, then much more useful If Freeh and Kallstom played fair, and did not insist on behind-the-scene lobbying for Digital Telephony and GAK, then I might even consider compromising my hard-line stance against GAK and encryption regulation. However, they insisted on pushing it even when they could not get enough public support. Right now, THEY have the power, THEY have the access, THEY do not have to answer to us (and the Devil is always in the details), so I think it is a bit unfair to say that some cypherpunk is being too harsh on the FBI. They (the FBI) are supposed to serve us. Instead, they are taking away our own control of our lives. It reminds me much of the power-hungry MIS suit who swoops in and takes away all of our root passwords without setting up the backups and the firewalls and add to our productivity. We can get some solutions for both sides, but it takes work, and Freeh and Kallstrom (and Clinton) cannot get political credits for these more subtle solutions, so they must choose between highly-visible (but technically wrong) solutions and real (but possibly thankless) solutions. I get the feeling I know what they are choosing right now. Ern
participants (2)
-
Ernest Hua -
Herb Lin