Cypherpunks asked to help ICC with strong crypto

[Phillip H. Zakas]

the contrarian in me says:
this is a bizarre request.  the us and uk govs are already assisting both in
the tracking (physical and asset) and 'acquisition' of suspected criminals
(remember most of the serb suspects were captured by non-serb troops.)  i
suspect the us and uk would be quite interested in hearing the icc is
seeking assistance from an informal political/social crypto group in matters
of crypto...unless the icc doesn't trust the us and the uk (contradicting
the cooperation the icc has received from these countries.)  why would the
icc need strong crypto?  and having come from an NGO myself (the imf) i'm
not sure they would trust a social/policital group like cypherpunks.  or
maybe i'm completely wrong of course.

on the other hand:
perhaps the icc is seeking neutral crypto capabilities to maintain a level
of comfort that they won't be hampered by us/european political influences
as they perform their work. i hope whoever helps is more than an amateur
crypto expert though...i'm sure the work will require a little more than
applying AES to e-mails.  they will want/need secure communications
protocols (digital and procedural), trusted operating systems,
communications medium expertise, local communications infrastructure
expertise, banking and host nation information database familiarity, etc.
this is an entire team of people and in this case they have to be good
enough to stand up to the likes of the nsa, cia, mi-5, mi-6, russian
intelligence (i could go on for paragraphs). an interesting challenge to be
sure, but a significant challenge.

phillip

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM
> [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Aimee Farr
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:26 PM
> To: cypherpunks at lne.com
> Cc: kentsnyder at thelibertycommittee.org
> Subject: Cypherpunks asked to help ICC with strong crypto
>
>
>
> A one Nomen said:
>
> > There was an interesting proposal by Dave Del Torto yesterday at SFBAY
> > cypherpunk meeting. He suggested that cypherpunks were, sort of, invited
> > to help a newly founded international police force. These guys help the
> > international court of justice, and track down criminals like Milosevic,
> > bin Laden and others. In their investigations they need strong crypto,
> > because sometimes they operate in the hostile environments.
>
> Before you support the ICC - know that there is substantial opposition to
> this entity, indeed the US was among the last 2 signatories -
> Clinton signed
> on his way out (along with Israel, I think.). Many of you have strong
> feelings in regard to the US Constitution, sovereignty, and
> nation-states. A
> copy of my original post of 2/19/01 is below.
>
> Links for information and investigation:
> http://iccnow.org (pro ICC)
> http://www.thelibertycommittee.org (con ICC)
>
> My personal opinion: neither side has adequately responded to my concerns.
> In fact, both sides seem overly emotionally charged... as it always is.
> However, the ICC CLEARLY bears the burden of persuasion.
>
> > If any cypherpunk needs a get-out-of-jail pass, this is the chance to
> > earn one.
>
> [1] Please send the international immunity pass so I can add this mythical
> beast to my form bank.
>
> [2] Heh. You might not make the friends you think. While
> international human
> rights is among one of the most worthwhile endeavors, many members of the
> executive branch, legislative branch and most notably - US intelligence
> communities and US Military are VIOLENTLY opposed to the ICC. On the other
> hand, a number of respected human rights groups that I support
> are violently
> in favor of the ICC. So is the American Bar Association, I believe. And,
> nobody likes the bad guys.
>
> > Volunteers should contact Dave.
>
> Obviously, Dave is a good guy, fighting bad guys is a good cause,
> I do think
> the ICC has something to say for itself. I certainly do not support "mass
> rapists" and other sick ilk and I think bringing them to justice
> is a worthy
> cause. However, I find "world justice" a problematic concept in
> practice. I
> think the role of the sovereign is to stand between YOU and other
> sovereigns, and that war and conflict is always bloody, sick, and never
> gentlemanly. I fear the use of treaty-power, and I think it has been
> overextended to reach individuals and deny them the protections and rights
> of their sovereign.
>
> =====================================
> My previous post, edited for clarity:
> =====================================
>
> <snip> ... according to some people's opinions of the International
> Criminal Court. Many say we will be yielding our sovereignty, our
> Constitution, and our procedural protections to this Court. (ICC
> advocates,
> on the other hand, are quick to point out concord between the ICC
> and the US
> Constitution: http://www.wfa.org/issues/icc/usconst.html .)
>
> The ICC is an international court, judging _individuals_, not
> nation-states,
> in regard to:
>
> "the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime
> of aggression." Many have expressed concern over subsequent extensions of
> the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
>
> One commentator stated that even
> if a nation is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC can still
> investigate a crime within that nation according to ICC rules. [I haven't
> read all the documentation, and I'm not about to, so I can't say
> about such
> nuances....]
> <snip>
>
> ********
> I invite, acknowledge, and appreciate opposing viewpoints. I
> admit my fears
> in this regard are slippery-slope, but who says this couldn't move into
> datacrime/cybercrime, I've already got the cybercrime treaty and
> cyberterrorism/INFOWAR is considered an act of aggression
> everywhere I know.
> The UN is a secret court and they strangle press and free speech rights. I
> balk at the thought of somebody ripping a fellow-American out of the US
> Constitution and imposing their notions of justice, procedure,
> investigation
> and discovery processes, no matter what precedents have been set in this
> area. IMHO, the ICC goes too far. That is a political entity.
>
> Is that an American-centric view? YES.
>
> Am I willing to compromise it to catch the worst evils on earth? NO. I've
> seen the pictures of horror, I am still unwilling to negotiate away the
> constitutional rights of American citizens. You have the right to
> be judged
> by a jury of your peers, not strangers from another country.
>
> Until the ICC addresses these concerns, they can kiss my ass.
>
> ~Aimee