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 (declan@wired.com) 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amateur radio was the first casualty after Pearl Harbor. Some criticize the action now, of course. ~Aimee
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:59 PM To: cypherpunks@lne.com 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 (declan@wired.com) 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 04:17 PM 9/13/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
Amateur radio was the first casualty after Pearl Harbor. Some criticize the action now, of course.
~Aimee
Nice analogy. However, it wasn't like there were 1e7 full-band HAM rigs in lots of living rooms, back then. The internet provides infinate bandwidth, vs. HAMs' little slices of spectrum, or cable's feeble Gigahertz pipe. Japs were put in concentration camps after Pearl Harbor, too.
At 04:17 PM 9/13/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
Amateur radio was the first casualty after Pearl Harbor. Some criticize the action now, of course.
~Aimee
Honig:
Nice analogy. However, it wasn't like there were 1e7 full-band HAM rigs in lots of living rooms, back then.
Agree. Just came to mind.
The internet provides infinate bandwidth, vs. HAMs' little slices of spectrum, or cable's feeble Gigahertz pipe.
Like the sky. Hm. "Open Skies." Eisenhower. That's a scary line of thought... How would "backdoor" cooperation be reconciled with heightened concerns over privatized economic espionage? (Is there a conflict? Is that not a new element, at least in terms of international concern?) ~Aimee
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 (declan@wired.com) 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
participants (4)
-
Aimee Farr -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Tim May