Re: Most elegant wording against privacy/law-enforcement "balance"
Guy skribis:
What are the most elegant rebuttals to politicians saying we need Key Recovery as a "reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement vs. freedom of crypto"?
I don't know how elegant it is, but here's my response: Compromising the public's right to privacy gives away not only our own rights, but those of our descendants. The government must make an extraordinary case to justify undermining those rights, and so far it has not done so. The most detailed research on the issue is a study by Dorothy Denning and William Baugh investigating the extent to which crypto has interfered with law enforcement's ability to get convictions: their bottom line was that crypto has not in fact interfered: law enforcement has been able to complete their investigations using other means. There's no demonstrated need for Government Access to Crypto Keys (GACK), so there's no need to compromise away our privacy. Jim Gillogly jim@acm.org
I strongly, emphatically, disagree with the reasoning used here by Jim Gillogly: At 5:44 PM -0800 2/6/98, Jim Gillogly wrote:
Guy skribis:
What are the most elegant rebuttals to politicians saying we need Key Recovery as a "reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement vs. freedom of crypto"?
I don't know how elegant it is, but here's my response:
Compromising the public's right to privacy gives away not only our own rights, but those of our descendants. The government must make an extraordinary case to justify undermining those rights, and so far it has not done so.
"So far it has not done so." This "argument based on utilitarian need" is at odds with the First Amendment. The notion that a form of speech in letters and phone calls and conversations could be compelled because, say, the government concludes that it is needed to stop some criminal actions, is ludicrous. A policy requiring certain forms of speech is no different from a policy saying the government may enter a house when it wishes. I am drawing the parallel with the Fourth deliberately: no amount of "study," even a study by such august persons as Denning and Baugh, could ever conclude that wholesale, unwarranted searches are permissable. The Fourth was put in just to stop such broad conclusions. Likewise, the First is clearly directed against such broad restrictons on speech (and religion, and assembly, and complaining (petitioning)) so that no "study" can be used to broadly restrict speech. And make no mistake about it, whatever the accepted arguments for restricting certain types of speech (notoriously, the "Fire!" example) are, they are not consistent with a broad requirement that persons face imprisonment if they speak in codes, or fail to use transparent envelopes, or disconnect the microphones in their homes!
The most detailed research on the issue is a study by Dorothy Denning and William Baugh investigating the extent to which crypto has interfered with law enforcement's ability to get convictions: their bottom line was that crypto has not in fact interfered: law enforcement has been able to complete their investigations using other means. There's no demonstrated need for Government Access to Crypto Keys (GACK), so there's no need to compromise away our privacy.
Bluntly pu, "FUCK "DEMONSTRATED NEED"!" And what if Denning and Baugh had reached other conclusions? (As well they might, next year, when crypto is more widely deployed.) I have strongly argued over the years against ever using some "government study" as the basis for our arguments, even when the studies appear to support our position. What the studies giveth, the studies can taketh away. --Tim May Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^3,021,377 | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim May wrote: |Jim wrote: | >The most detailed research on the issue is a study by Dorothy Denning | >and William Baugh investigating the extent to which crypto has | >interfered with law enforcement's ability to get convictions: their | >bottom line was that crypto has not in fact interfered: law enforcement | >has been able to complete their investigations using other means. | >There's no demonstrated need for Government Access to Crypto Keys | >(GACK), so there's no need to compromise away our privacy. | | Bluntly pu, "FUCK "DEMONSTRATED NEED"!" | | And what if Denning and Baugh had reached other conclusions? (As well they | might, next year, when crypto is more widely deployed.) Its a utilitarian, and useful argument to point out that the Clipper Chick has been forced to change her position based on observed reality. Its not the basis of our moral argument, only pointing out that the only academic to hold a position not in line with ours was intellectually honest enough to say she's unsupported by the facts. This is not to say that crypto is ok as long as it doesn't matter, or the police have legitamate needs that they may define, but that when their own spokespeople reject them, its a powerful argument. Much as you rejoice in terrorist use of encryption, I rejoice in being able to quote Dorothy Denning. :) (I have a great deal of respect for Dorothy Denning's willingness to take and argue unpopular positions, and change her mind when proven wrong.) Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
What are the most elegant rebuttals to politicians saying we need Key Recovery as a "reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement vs. freedom of crypto"?
Someone, probably Jim Ray, has a nice phrase about "Protecting the Fourth Amendment _is_ one of the legitimate needs of law enforcement." It's not an in-depth critique, but it's enough to get a rant off to a good start, where you're on the moral high ground, rather than the "Even the FBI's friends like Dorothy haven't found a legitimate need for increasing wiretaps", which is a useful place to go as long as you're already ahead. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
participants (4)
-
Adam Shostack -
Bill Stewart -
jim＠mentat.com -
Tim May