(fwd) I won't be renewing my EFF membership
Someone commented earlier on the lack of outrage that the EFF has "sold us out" on the Digital Telephony Bill. Well, I posted this message to the comp.org.eff.talk news group. --Tim Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: I won't be renewing my EFF membership Message-ID: <tcmayCuCJwr.KK3@netcom.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 01:24:27 GMT I'm not especially pleased to be saying that I won't be renewing my membership in the EFF when the time comes, later this year. The involvement of the EFF in the drafting of the new Digital Telephony Bill is the proximate case, though I can't say I was ever too happy with the EFF's position on the National Information Infrastructure. I'm sure the argument is that "things would have been worse" had the EFF not helped Congress, but I just have never seen the wisdom of helping your hangman tie a better knot. Call me a rejectionist if you will. No compromises. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
The Digital Telephony Bill states up to 15 years in jail for unauthorized tapping of wireless telephony. It seems that the EFF puts this on the plus side, as an example of the enhanced rights to privacy in the Bill. I have a problem with this approach. In presence of strong crypto, would even alligator clipping have to be outlawed? (Hidden microphones and other intrusions inside your estate is obviously another matter.) The present state of affairs in many countries (including .se), that the Ether is free to listen to and with no restrictions as to what electronic devices (possibly except for weaponry) a free citizen can construct, seems fair to me. Want privacy in the all-surrounding electromagnetic spectrum? Use crypto. If an enterprise expects money for the use of their airwaves they will have to outsmart the pirates. Here they recently outlawed the selling/distribution (haven't read the actual text) of pirate cable-TV decoders, but not the building or possession of such devices (thanks Mammon, saves me $100 a month). Even this legislation seems an example of unnecessary government obtrusion to me. It should not be the business of government to protect crypto-incompetent private enterprise from loosing money. And 15 years in jail? Scary, in any case totally out of proportion. (I cannot yet really believe that the EFF has been involved in this, being an overseas paying supporter since 2 years. If it comes out true I will go the way of Mr May - out.) Mats
| The Digital Telephony Bill states up to 15 years in jail | for unauthorized tapping of wireless telephony. It seems | that the EFF puts this on the plus side, as an example of | the enhanced rights to privacy in the Bill. I have a problem | with this approach. In presence of strong crypto, would even | alligator clipping have to be outlawed? (Hidden microphones | and other intrusions inside your estate is obviously another | matter.) The problem here is twofild. First, as you point out, strong cryptography alliviates the need for strong laws, a point missed yb our legislators. Second, in the US, there is a court which handles federal wiretap requests. Its granted 6500 wiretap orders out of 6500 requests in the last 20 years. It seems to be too easy to get a federal wiretap order, and there exists insufficient oversight. Adam -- Adam Shostack adam@bwh.harvard.edu Politics. From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small, annoying bloodsucker.
participants (3)
-
Adam Shostack -
Mats Bergstrom -
tcmay＠netcom.com