Canada's justice minister preparing bill to limit encryption
[This article no longer appears to be online, but I've verified that the below excerpt is accurate. --DBM] ******** Montreal Gazette September 25, 2001 Tuesday Page 14 Ottawa to try to freeze terrorist funds: Tougher rules and changes to criminal code expected to make it easier to track monies By ELIZABETH THOMPSON OTTAWA -- Canada will move to follow the American lead and shut down funding for terrorists, Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions Jim Peterson said yesterday. [...] Peterson said the government plans to adopt tough new weapons to combat the financing of terrorism, possibly through an omnibus bill. Among the possible measures is extending the system that combats money-laundering to tracking terrorist funds, he said. While Peterson said the new rules are almost ready and should be introduced soon, neither he nor Justice Minister Anne McLellan could pinpoint a date. [...] McLellan said the legislation she is preparing will also deal with such issues as lawful access, encryption, decryption and electronic surveillance. [...] McLellan said she will meet with a number of European counterparts today and U.S counterparts next week to try to co-ordinate Canada's legislation with theirs. [...]
At 06:38 PM 9/26/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: <snip>
McLellan said the legislation she is preparing will also deal with such issues as lawful access, encryption, decryption and electronic surveillance. [...] McLellan said she will meet with a number of European counterparts today and U.S counterparts next week to try to co-ordinate Canada's legislation with theirs. [...]
Wonder how ZKS will handle this? steve
At 04:06 PM 9/26/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
Wonder how ZKS will handle this?
Ah, yes, Canada, land of the free. Didn't you know that Montreal is an entirely hospitable place for libertarian anarcho-capitalists? Perhaps there will be an exemption in this (admittedly, entirely fuzzy) proposal for companies that voluntarily escrow their keys with the RCMP. -Declan
At 07:17 PM 9/26/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 04:06 PM 9/26/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
Wonder how ZKS will handle this?
Ah, yes, Canada, land of the free. Didn't you know that Montreal is an entirely hospitable place for libertarian anarcho-capitalists?
Perhaps there will be an exemption in this (admittedly, entirely fuzzy) proposal for companies that voluntarily escrow their keys with the RCMP.
Perhaps I incompletely understand ZKS' technology. I thought they have structured their system to deny them data (ZK) which could be escrowed. steve
At 04:53 PM 9/26/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 07:17 PM 9/26/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 04:06 PM 9/26/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
Wonder how ZKS will handle this?
Ah, yes, Canada, land of the free. Didn't you know that Montreal is an entirely hospitable place for libertarian anarcho-capitalists?
Perhaps there will be an exemption in this (admittedly, entirely fuzzy) proposal for companies that voluntarily escrow their keys with the RCMP.
Perhaps I incompletely understand ZKS' technology. I thought they have structured their system to deny them data (ZK) which could be escrowed.
Ah, I was joking. But they'll have to find some way to comply (if the bill becomes law, hardly a certainty). -Declan
On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 04:53 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 07:17 PM 9/26/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 04:06 PM 9/26/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
Wonder how ZKS will handle this?
Ah, yes, Canada, land of the free. Didn't you know that Montreal is an entirely hospitable place for libertarian anarcho-capitalists?
Perhaps there will be an exemption in this (admittedly, entirely fuzzy) proposal for companies that voluntarily escrow their keys with the RCMP.
Perhaps I incompletely understand ZKS' technology. I thought they have structured their system to deny them data (ZK) which could be escrowed.
steve
I admit/regret that I live in an almost perpetual state of "I told you so." Pretty much everything that has unfolded was clear to me in the 1988-92 period, and I have the essays and postings to prove it. The implications for ZKS were also obvious. In a meeting I had, at their request, with Austin and Hammie, facillitated by Lucky Green, and then joined by sheer happenstance by Jim McCoy (*), I even anticipated this current problem. (* We met at the cafe next to Kepler's Books in Menlo Park, and Jim McCoy happened to wander by.) I asked Austin and Hammie how their centralized system, localized in Montreal, would handle the situation of the hijacking of a plane carrying the Queen. (I also gave as examples child porn and contract killings.). Austin and Hammie both said "We would not be able to trace a message." Perhaps so, though less obviously so than when a message has gone through 10 remailers, with nested encryption, in 5 different countries. Anyway, my response was this: "The RCMP will tell you to produce the origin of the message or will order you to shut down. They may tell you to produce the origin AND shut down." Such is the risk of being highly-visible and a "single point of stoppage." (There is no evidence that Freedom was used by any of the attackers in the 911 event, but they could have been users. The point about a single point of stoppage remains.) --Tim May
Tim May wrote:
I admit/regret that I live in an almost perpetual state of "I told you so."
Cynics may not get much fun out of life, but there is the schadenfreude pleasure of saying "I told you so". And the endless entertainment of watching the hairless apes find new ways of throwing shit at each other. <wry grin> Cynically, SRF -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
Jack Straw, the previous UK Home Secretary, sounded off about encryption and the law in a radio interview this morning. He seemed to blame "naive" libertarians for watering down laws and preventing security people from spotting the hijackers. He wasn't very coherent on the matter. Naive libertarians of my acquaintance haven't yet worked out which law he meant - it can't be RIP which wasn't in force when the suspects were in Britain & would have made no difference anyway. Maybe it was the Human Rights Act, of which Straw was a strong supporter? He also thinks his opponents should have changed their mind. Perhaps we would if were were as forgetful as he seems to be. Ken Brown Posted to UKcrypto by Ian Miller: The Straw interview with Sue MacGregor (in RealAudio format) is on the BBC site at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin//radio4/today/listen/audiosearch.pl?ProgID=1001... 858>. This is a 16 minute clip. The Straw interview starts 5 minutes in (05:01). The first six minutes were largely about his recent diplomacy and, in my view, generally good sense. The following transcript is from 11:49 into the click until the end of the interview at 13:45. Straw: Now you talk about eleven terrorists coming passed through here, I understand that may be true, but I would also like to make this point, I would like to ask you on the Today programme and other journalists to cast your mind back to the approach that all of you were taking before the eleventh of September. I can tell you and look at the record whenever I was arguing in favour of tougher anti-terrorist powers or tougher powers for example to de-encrypt commercially encrypted e-mails I was told that this was a breach of civil liberties, almost that it was the end of civilisation as we knew it and that it was completely unnecessary and the beginning of Big Brother society. What I was doing and those who were supporting me were doing was to say "hang on a second we live a difficult"... MacGregor (interrupting): It wasn't this programme that was saying that, just to clarify, it maybe people on this programme put that point of view. Straw: But there is an issue of the culture of journalism. You of course very often are a mouth piece for the prevailing non-governmental organisations and I understand why. But I am just saying the prevailing mood was all one way, that this was Big Brother government. It wasn't Big Brother government. It was government trying to put in place increased powers so that we could preserve and sustain our democracy against this new kind of threat. Let me just give you one example, Sue. We needed to take powers so that we could de-encrypt commerically encrypted e-mails and other communications. Why? Because we knew that terrorists were going to use this. What happened? Large parts of the industry, backed by some people who will now recognise they were very naive in retrospect said "you mustn't do that" and the pressure was so great that we and in the United States, I used to talk to Jane Reno the then Attorney General about this, we had to back down a bit. Now I heard people say "Why are these terrorists here". Well the answer is not because of any lapse by the intelligence or security services or the police but because people have had a two dimensional view of civil liberties. The most fundamental civil liberty is the right to life, and preserving that and sustaining that must come before others. MacGregor: Foreign Secretary, thank you very much. Straw: Thank you very much.
Wasn't there an attempt by the prevous gov't to try to introduce key escrow in a bill before RIP? I forget what the bill was though. Although I can't see Labour supporting a Tory bill, I wouldn't be suprised if Straw did... No one has yet been able to explain to me what Straw is doing being a member of the Labour party, he seems to be more right wing than most Tories. Tolan -----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@ssz.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@ssz.com]On Behalf Of Ken Brown Sent: 28 September 2001 17:41 To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: CDR: Ex-UK Home Secretary blames crypto lobbyists for hijackers (1) Jack Straw, the previous UK Home Secretary, sounded off about encryption and the law in a radio interview this morning. He seemed to blame "naive" libertarians for watering down laws and preventing security people from spotting the hijackers. He wasn't very coherent on the matter. Naive libertarians of my acquaintance haven't yet worked out which law he meant - it can't be RIP which wasn't in force when the suspects were in Britain & would have made no difference anyway. Maybe it was the Human Rights Act, of which Straw was a strong supporter? He also thinks his opponents should have changed their mind. Perhaps we would if were were as forgetful as he seems to be. Ken Brown Posted to UKcrypto by Ian Miller: The Straw interview with Sue MacGregor (in RealAudio format) is on the BBC site at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin//radio4/today/listen/audiosearch.pl?ProgID=100 1686 858>. This is a 16 minute clip. The Straw interview starts 5 minutes in (05:01). The first six minutes were largely about his recent diplomacy and, in my view, generally good sense. The following transcript is from 11:49 into the click until the end of the interview at 13:45. Straw: Now you talk about eleven terrorists coming passed through here, I understand that may be true, but I would also like to make this point, I would like to ask you on the Today programme and other journalists to cast your mind back to the approach that all of you were taking before the eleventh of September. I can tell you and look at the record whenever I was arguing in favour of tougher anti-terrorist powers or tougher powers for example to de-encrypt commercially encrypted e-mails I was told that this was a breach of civil liberties, almost that it was the end of civilisation as we knew it and that it was completely unnecessary and the beginning of Big Brother society. What I was doing and those who were supporting me were doing was to say "hang on a second we live a difficult"... MacGregor (interrupting): It wasn't this programme that was saying that, just to clarify, it maybe people on this programme put that point of view. Straw: But there is an issue of the culture of journalism. You of course very often are a mouth piece for the prevailing non-governmental organisations and I understand why. But I am just saying the prevailing mood was all one way, that this was Big Brother government. It wasn't Big Brother government. It was government trying to put in place increased powers so that we could preserve and sustain our democracy against this new kind of threat. Let me just give you one example, Sue. We needed to take powers so that we could de-encrypt commerically encrypted e-mails and other communications. Why? Because we knew that terrorists were going to use this. What happened? Large parts of the industry, backed by some people who will now recognise they were very naive in retrospect said "you mustn't do that" and the pressure was so great that we and in the United States, I used to talk to Jane Reno the then Attorney General about this, we had to back down a bit. Now I heard people say "Why are these terrorists here". Well the answer is not because of any lapse by the intelligence or security services or the police but because people have had a two dimensional view of civil liberties. The most fundamental civil liberty is the right to life, and preserving that and sustaining that must come before others. MacGregor: Foreign Secretary, thank you very much. Straw: Thank you very much.
participants (6)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Ken Brown -
Steve Furlong -
Steve Schear -
Tim May -
Tolan Blundell