RE: Hiawatha Bray's column on key-recovery crypto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:44 AM 9/11/97 -0400, Hiawatha Bray wrote:
What a cool idea! Why didn't I think of that?
Hiawatha
On Thursday, September 11, 1997 9:41 AM, Arnold G. Reinhold [SMTP:reinhold@worl
Hiawatha, I enjoyed your column (Boston Globe Business Section Sept. 11), but why don't you announce that you have a PGP key, print it's signature in a column and ask people to use it to send you news tips? This would enable a freedom of the press challange to GAK.
Further, he could give pointers to Private Idaho, John Doe, etc., and encourage the use of anonymous tips to the newsmedia. Since I operate a cyberspace parking garage (the WinSock Remailer) and since the Lippo Administration is the most Nixonian since Tricky himself, I would think that the major media would be up-in-arms over threats to anonymous communication over the web. After all, which reporter-team doesn't want to be the next Woodward and Bernstein? I can understand (while not agreeing with...) my local rag's opposition to the second amendment, but the total apathy shown to dangers faced by the first is hard to fathom. I read the Herald pretty carefully, yet there has been NOTHING this week on the crypto-controversy. Nothing. While I often disagree with the Miami Herald's reporting decisions (both substance and emphasis) it is rare that I find it this scary. <sigh> JMR P.S. When *Seth* said, "(and wow, do they like to rant on every issue)" about Libertarians, my irony-meter broke its needle. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQEPAwUBNBh3ITUhsGSn1j2pAQF4BQfPZqEWo714dVrd0tQH+fk3jN2nzwUEtlGh wB6ggUbEJ1GX+LaGdEnWlM1xfFYvIB+ej/3PHumw7P3yIYYNt4XI480LVEEFxfWO nohAmIOe19+zt73wTZ1Oa9cNDYdOAbrMS5YW3BeyCY1i6nGkaCqXQteaoEJ4MxE1 V+jRIW9sJAdll4+ATw+xzQafl4K8uFk0soCcaupb05FeJVkLseiBxmLl1kBQwOpr 3Y6O8gO8v+ZmlaWsehlgciM47jkOpaAKNX+4b2mHx0+NrfQcfXNQWQ6JoNbx5NaO L35zof4Ds0bt+t3sIiQG7i7kR5Bbsul4vSfb6R14TtZ6Og== =HOEQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 4:30 PM -0700 9/11/97, Jim Ray wrote:
Bernstein? I can understand (while not agreeing with...) my local rag's opposition to the second amendment, but the total apathy shown to dangers faced by the first is hard to fathom. I read the Herald pretty carefully, yet there has been NOTHING this week on the crypto-controversy. Nothing. While I often disagree with the Miami Herald's reporting decisions (both substance and emphasis) it is rare that I find it this scary. <sigh>
As Declan noted, when he wrote, "* Ban on sale of crypto without a backdoor. Five year & fine (maybe $250,000?) if violated. Prosecutions can be held in closed-door courtrooms, publishers of info about case to be held in contempt of court." this means newspapers may not write articles on this case, or the law. This is why the "Miami Herald" dares not cover this. (But seriously, the above example cited, that publishers of info being held in contempt of court, seems too wacky even for the current Congress. Have they no understanding of what a free press is? Free press applying to any of us, of course, and not just to the "officially recognized major news sources." I can't beleve that could withstand court scrutiny.) And the prosecutions in closed-door courts would seem also to violate various provisions of the Constitution, including the 6th. (That the "foreign intelligence surveillance court" (FISUR) has not been challenged perhaps has to do with its origins under one of the Emergency Powers things, and its limited applicability to ordering surveillance. But to extend this to, say, the prosecution of someone, even a citizen, seems like a blatant "star chamber" situation.) The rest of this verison is equally bad--sounding. (I mention "this version," because each of the committees--Intelligence, Commerce, National Security, whatever--is fighting to make their versions more Big Brotherish.) What a fucking bunch of criminals. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
At 06:12 PM 9/11/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm reading the bill more closely. This is incredibly slick work.
1. When it appears that any person is selling, importing, or distributing non-backdoor'd crypto or "about" to do so, the Atty General can sue to stop them. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary restraining order against the party being sued."
They get an *automatic* TRO? [...]
More interestingly, this gives courts including the FISA court (yes, the secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap) jurisdiction; they can issue ex parte orders giving police access to plaintext. Also lets U.S. government coordinate with other governments in doing such.
Is there any way of finding out the names of the judges sitting on the FISA court? --Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56. http://rc5.distributed.net/
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Lucky Green wrote:
secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap) jurisdiction; they can issue ex parte orders giving police access to plaintext. Also lets U.S. government coordinate with other governments in doing such.
Is there any way of finding out the names of the judges sitting on the FISA court?
Not that I know of, though I do know that U.S. District Court Judge Joyce Green served on the FISA court for seven years. Background: The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act established a special, secret court of current Federal district court judges. They approve warrants in secret hearings, with no opposing attorneys present. The judges are required to be available 24 hours a day for emergency hearings. Some happen in the middle of the night in the judge's home. -Declan
Yep, they get an automatic TRO. Amazing, huh, what National Security arguments can do? Not sure if we can find out much about the FISA court. Very clandestine. WashPostMag ran something a few months ago. I'm copying this to David, who probably knows more about it than anyone else I know. -Declan On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Lucky Green wrote:
At 06:12 PM 9/11/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm reading the bill more closely. This is incredibly slick work.
1. When it appears that any person is selling, importing, or distributing non-backdoor'd crypto or "about" to do so, the Atty General can sue to stop them. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary restraining order against the party being sued."
They get an *automatic* TRO?
[...]
More interestingly, this gives courts including the FISA court (yes, the secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap) jurisdiction; they can issue ex parte orders giving police access to plaintext. Also lets U.S. government coordinate with other governments in doing such.
Is there any way of finding out the names of the judges sitting on the FISA court?
--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56. http://rc5.distributed.net/
I'm reading the bill more closely. This is incredibly slick work. 1. When it appears that any person is selling, importing, or distributing non-backdoor'd crypto or "about" to do so, the Atty General can sue to stop them. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary restraining order against the party being sued." 2. There are provisions for closing the proceedings -- at the request of the "party against whom injunction is being sought." "Public disclosure of the proceedings shall be treated as contempt of court." Can also be closed if judge makes finding. 3. You can request an advisory opinion from the Atty Gen to see if crypto you're about to give out (even for free) violates the law. That will get you off the hook during any prosecution. 4. If DoJ loses at trial court, they get an expedited appeal. More interestingly, this gives courts including the FISA court (yes, the secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap) jurisdiction; they can issue ex parte orders giving police access to plaintext. Also lets U.S. government coordinate with other governments in doing such. You get notified not later than 90 days afterwards. There are a lot of other "checks and balances" here that will be touted as safeguards. -Declan On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:
At 4:30 PM -0700 9/11/97, Jim Ray wrote:
Bernstein? I can understand (while not agreeing with...) my local rag's opposition to the second amendment, but the total apathy shown to dangers faced by the first is hard to fathom. I read the Herald pretty carefully, yet there has been NOTHING this week on the crypto-controversy. Nothing. While I often disagree with the Miami Herald's reporting decisions (both substance and emphasis) it is rare that I find it this scary. <sigh>
As Declan noted, when he wrote,
"* Ban on sale of crypto without a backdoor. Five year & fine (maybe $250,000?) if violated. Prosecutions can be held in closed-door courtrooms, publishers of info about case to be held in contempt of court."
this means newspapers may not write articles on this case, or the law.
This is why the "Miami Herald" dares not cover this.
(But seriously, the above example cited, that publishers of info being held in contempt of court, seems too wacky even for the current Congress. Have they no understanding of what a free press is? Free press applying to any of us, of course, and not just to the "officially recognized major news sources." I can't beleve that could withstand court scrutiny.)
And the prosecutions in closed-door courts would seem also to violate various provisions of the Constitution, including the 6th. (That the "foreign intelligence surveillance court" (FISUR) has not been challenged perhaps has to do with its origins under one of the Emergency Powers things, and its limited applicability to ordering surveillance. But to extend this to, say, the prosecution of someone, even a citizen, seems like a blatant "star chamber" situation.)
The rest of this verison is equally bad--sounding. (I mention "this version," because each of the committees--Intelligence, Commerce, National Security, whatever--is fighting to make their versions more Big Brotherish.)
What a fucking bunch of criminals.
I'm reading the bill more closely. This is incredibly slick work.
1. When it appears that any person is selling, importing, or distributing non-backdoor'd crypto or "about" to do so, the Atty General can sue to stop them. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary restraining order against the party being sued."
Fucking A, Declan! (A highly precise legal term of art for all you laypeople out there.) Even if these guys don't give a shit about the First Amendment, or have forgotten how hard it is to get a prior restraint Order, have they excised the Separation of Powers doctrine from the Constitution too? oh.forgot.national security.never mind. -Jim
participants (5)
-
Declan McCullagh -
James S. Tyre -
Jim Ray -
Lucky Green -
Tim May