Surveillance a Growing Problem
(I've changed the thread name from "Fuhrman...." to the topic being discussed here.) At 10:56 PM 9/1/95, Buford Terrell wrote:
If you've ever watched Not_at_all_Funny Home Videos or any of the American Urinal school of tabloid television, you soon start feeling that the real threat to privacy is not the guvmint, but all of the yoyos with their little cam corders running around pointing them at people.
Security cameras in ATMS and at airline ticket counters do more to threaten you privacy than do FIBBIE wiretaps, and PGP won't protect you from them. (and usually neither will the courts).
I absolutely agree with this, though this doesn't mean I'll stop worrying about the government's plans for key escrow (GAK), about limits on key lengths, or about other efforts to thwart strong security. But clearly the "technologies of surveillance," ranging from massively-cross-correlated mailing lists to smaller and cheaper and more ubiquitous video cameras, are very nearly an equal threat. (Lots of issues, from the nearly universal requests for Social Security Numbers, to the growing powers of courts to compel the disclosure of private documents, to, well, you folks all know the trends.) Folks like us should not be lobbying for limitations on what other private individuals or companies are doing, but should concentrate first, on technological alternatives (encryption, unlinkable credentials, digital money, that sort of thing) and second, on educating others that security and privacy is best self-arranged and is rarely accomplished by government assuming the role of protector. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:
At 10:56 PM 9/1/95, Buford Terrell wrote:
If you've ever watched Not_at_all_Funny Home Videos or any of the American Urinal school of tabloid television, you soon start feeling that the real threat to privacy is not the guvmint, but all of the yoyos with their little cam corders running around pointing them at people.
Security cameras in ATMS and at airline ticket counters do more to threaten you privacy than do FIBBIE wiretaps, and PGP won't protect you from them. (and usually neither will the courts).
I absolutely agree with this, though this doesn't mean I'll stop worrying about the government's plans for key escrow (GAK), about limits on key lengths, or about other efforts to thwart strong security.
I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here. I am curious to know, however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it). In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable?? EBD
In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??
EBD
Speaking for myself only, of course, mandatory key escrow under *any* circumstances is a Bad Thing. I don't want anyone to have my secret key/passphrase, even if 'anyone' consists of n respected cypherpunks. (How are we supposed to tell whether they're LE, anyway? I possess a high degree of confidence, for example, that Tim May is not an undercover spook. But that doesn't stop various tentacles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H anonymous posters from expressing assertions to the contrary.) If I *give* my key to an escrow agent, of course, that's a different story. ("Mr. Cheatem, in the event of my death or disappearance, please decrypt this file with the enclosed key and fax it to the Washington Post.") But I certainly don't want to allow my key to reside with an agent who could be forced to turn it over on the basis of a court order. Sorry if I'm repeating an earlier discussion. Mark -- Mark Contois * The Lenox Group * Boston, MA * http://www.lenox.com/~mark/ Finger for PGP public key * Stellar Crisis: http://www.lenox.com/games/sc Cypherpunks: Share and deploy ********* NSA: Go stick your head in a pig.
Brian, Your question is very hard to answer as poised. How is access granted? To whom? In what period of time?, etc. The details are very important here as this is a very detail-oriented list. Also the details of implementation are where you may find the objections. Many plans sound grand when loosely described but fail due to small details. My personal belief is that any mandatory key escrow system will be open to abuse by authority figures. A solidly implemented key escrow service operated by smart privacy oriented private firms would have benifit corperations and others engaged in cooperative development or other cooperative operations. Key escrow would keep the accountants and lawyers happy. Just my $0.02. djw On Sep 3, 9:25pm, Brian Davis wrote:
Subject: Re: GAK [stuff deleted] I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here. I am curious to know, however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).
In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??
EBD
-- End of excerpt from Brian Davis
-- Duncan J Watson Email:Duncan@hasp.com Tech Support Manager/Sys Admin Ph#: +1 212 564 5678 Aladdin Software Security Inc Fax#: +1 212 564 3377 :::finger Duncan@hasp.com for PGP key::: http://www.aks.com/
On Sun, 3 Sep 1995 21:25:26 -0400 (EDT), Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net> wrote: } } I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here. I am curious to know, } however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under } any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat } and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the } judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it). You leave out something here when you say `the judge "cheating"'. Most of the proposals and draft legislation include words like "or by other lawful authority" along with the provisions empowering judges to grant access to keys. Some versions will list various combinations of the Attorney General, Director of {TLA}, etc, as explicitly empowered. Other versions don't explicate the phrase, perhaps trusting that those with the need will already know where their lawful authority lies -- maybe in an anti-terrorist Executive Order; maybe in legislation authorizing military support in drug interdiction; perhaps in their organization's charter to protect "national security". Part of the concern is that spooks will have routine access to keys without any cheating -- no stealing or bent judges will be required. The War on Drugs, the War on Firearms, the War on Terrorists (on Money Lauderers, on Pedophiles, on Spies) are just too important. } In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of } non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable?? This would not be acceptable to the government. Very many sincere, patriotic government agents believe they currently have the right and the responsibility to monitor the civilians' possibly-illegal activities. Your hypothetical review board of cypherpunks would unacceptably limit their established right to gather evidence and intelligence. Investigations too sensitive to mention here, would be crippled. Unless of course, you intended that "or by other lawful authority" would be included in your scheme? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Lou Poppler <lwp@mail.msen.com> | "Understanding is a three-edged :: :: http://www.msen.com/~lwp/ | sword..."-- Ambassador Kosh, Babylon5:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
On Sun, 3 Sep 1995, Brian Davis wrote:
I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here. I am curious to know, however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).
...or "somebody else" (ie commercial competitor, personal or political rival, etc) paying off somebody to obtain it. I don't trust the gvm't to only get access when they should, either.
In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??
Not necessarily; the members of the review board can be bribed, blackmailed, lied to, etc. I don't believe there's a competent review board available...nor do I think such a thing could be created. Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lasser <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu> (410)494-3072 Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.
In article <Pine.D-G.3.91.950903212120.8430B-100000@dg.thepoint.net>, bdavis@thepoint.net (Brian Davis) wrote:
I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here. I am curious to know, however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).
Speaking only for myself, I would resist government access to my data or property. Court orderd warrant or not. I firmly believe that the majority of "lawful" acts the goverment in its various incarnations commits every day is in violation of not only the US Constitution, but of the natural rights given to me as part of my humanity. I therefore hold that I have right, if not the duty, to resists these acts in anyway possible, upto and including the use of lethal force. The number of citizens who share this opininon are growing every day. --anon, due to the denoucement of the Bill of Rights by the criminals in high office.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Brian Davis writes:
I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here. I am curious to know, however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).
Since you're sure to get a number of long responses to this question, I'll keep mine short. I don't want to give anyone my keys. I do not harm anyone by refusing to do so. Therefore, anyone using force to take my keys is acting immorally.*
In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??
No. I don't choose to give Louis Freeh my keys. I don't choose to give Brian Davis my keys. I don't choose to give Tim May my keys. Any use of force to compel me to yield my keys is unacceptable. Regards, Patrick May * Insert standard Objectivist and Libertarian arguments regarding morality, government, and force here. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBME80YO5Yg08fDKehAQEoqAP/QWcvU4xu4qQNw7S6RNPQ+zCmGzh+B/7r G/490EMOKifsraaDYmh0WRBJ7+2rr+sWuvwpnJzVhRPcR1Mhzz/ZbNjrIm5wFhDH /Yrkln3oZ8iIKgvvwrw75krBG511CHvHg0OudYsxuuP10pgQaT59uQF0bod1plY0 zpao6in3ZKI= =QxbQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brian Davis writes:
I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here. I am curious to know, however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).
Since you're sure to get a number of long responses to this question, I'll keep mine short. I don't want to give anyone my keys. I do not harm anyone by refusing to do so. Therefore, anyone using force to take my keys is acting immorally.*
In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??
No. I don't choose to give Louis Freeh my keys. I don't choose to give Brian Davis my keys. I don't choose to give Tim May my keys. Any use of force to compel me to yield my keys is unacceptable. Regards, Patrick May * Insert standard Objectivist and Libertarian arguments regarding morality, government, and force here.
participants (8)
-
Brian Davis -
duncan@hasp.com -
Jon Lasser -
lwp@mail.msen.com -
Mark Contois -
nobody@REPLAY.COM -
pjm@ionia.engr.sgi.com -
tcmay@got.net