[IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push (fwd from dave@farber.net)
The extreme ease of use of internet wiretapping and lack of accountability is not a good situation to create.
False. It is the best possible situation cpunk-wise I can imagine. It effectively deals away with bs artists (those who *argue* against this or that) and empowers mathematics. If one is so fucking stupid, lazy or both not to encrypt, anonymize and practice other safe-sex approaches then let's hope that whatever broad wiretapping results in will also have slight (but measurable) pressure in factoring those out from the gene pool. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25" http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
The extreme ease of use of internet wiretapping and lack of accountability is not a good situation to create. False. It is the best possible situation cpunk-wise I can imagine. No, it is a terrible situation. It establishes a legal requirement that communications *not* be private from
Morlock Elloi wrote: the feds. from there, it is just a small step to defining encryption as a deliberate attempt to circumvent that law, and so a crime in itself.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:13:48AM +0100, Dave Howe wrote:
No, it is a terrible situation. It establishes a legal requirement that communications *not* be private from the feds. from there, it is just a small step to defining encryption as a deliberate attempt to circumvent that law, and so a crime in itself.
Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption? How do you prove somebody is using encryption on a steganographic channel? -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
At 12:09 PM +0200 4/22/04, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption?
Amen.
It's like expecting a worldwide ban on finance. Been tried. Doesn't work.
:-)
Cheers,
RAH
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 12:09 PM +0200 4/22/04, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption? It's like expecting a worldwide ban on finance. Been tried. Doesn't work. There isn't a worldwide ban on breaking CSS - doesn't stop the film industry trying to enforce it in the US courts. That it doesn't apply outside the US is fine if you are in the netherlands, not so hot if you, your isp, or some branch of your ISP is in the states.
At 4:32 PM +0100 4/22/04, Dave Howe wrote:
There isn't a worldwide ban on breaking CSS - doesn't stop the film industry trying to enforce it in the US courts.
Carl Ellison tells the story about how, with the advent of the longbow, all
these peasants had to get absolution from their local priests for killing
knights. Kill a noble on Wednesday, confess on Sunday, lather, rinse,
repeat.
Needless to say, the impedance mismatch between reality and dogma resolved
itself.
The economics of networks outweighs the economics of intellectual property
law. That, too, will resolve itself, just like Clipper did.
As for finance itself, there's a reason that I say that financial
cryptography is the only cryptography that matters. Since the time of
Mesopotamian bullae and grain banks, cryptography has been essential to
finance. You can't do one without the other. The more cryptography you do,
the more finance you can do, the better off everyone is. It's a virtuous
circle.
The internet and Moore's law accelerates cryptographic, and thus financial,
progress. More stuff cheaper.
Cheers,
RAH
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
At 12:09 PM +0200 4/22/04, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption?
Amen.
It's like expecting a worldwide ban on finance. Been tried. Doesn't work.
But the goal isn't to ban it; just marginalize it enough to be able to tar it as a terrorist action. True, there is no worldwide ban on finance. But there is the delightful 'know your customer' law.
At 4:00 PM -0400 4/22/04, Pete Capelli wrote:
But the goal isn't to ban it; just marginalize it enough to be able to tar it as a terrorist action.
True, there is no worldwide ban on finance. But there is the delightful 'know your customer' law.
That's just a monster in the closet.
Fact is, the more people are able to hack insecure networks, the stronger
the crypto gets. At some point, we converge to instantaneous transactions,
and that means stuff like blind signatures. Anything else costs too much.
When we're at bearer transactions, we don't have audit trails anymore...
Right?
:-)
Cheers,
RAH
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:13:48AM +0100, Dave Howe wrote:
No, it is a terrible situation. It establishes a legal requirement that communications *not* be private from the feds. from there, it is just a small step to defining encryption as a deliberate attempt to circumvent that law, and so a crime in itself. Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption? No. Just one on using crypto in america to avoid the feds listening in - currently this is legal, but adds an additional penalty if you are convicted of something *and* the feds decide you used crypto as well.
How do you prove somebody is using encryption on a steganographic channel? obviously you don't - but I doubt you could conveniently find a steganographic channel convincing enough to pass muster and yet fast enough to handle VoIP traffic. Besides, it could easily devolve into a your-word-against-theirs argument, after you have already spent some time in jail waiting to get to trial (or at least the threat of this). Martha already found out how the FBI can bend the rules if they want to make an example of you.
participants (5)
-
Dave Howe -
Eugen Leitl -
Morlock Elloi -
Pete Capelli -
R. A. Hettinga