World Socialist Web On PGP creator

[Matthew Gaylor]

PGP creator defends right to encrypt emails against calls for a ban

By Mike Ingram
1 October 2001
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/pgp-o01.shtml

[ Home page: http://www.wsws.org/index.shtml ]

Philip Zimmermann, the creator of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
encryption software, has issued a statement aimed at clarifying his
attitude towards encryption in the aftermath of the September 11
terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

The statement, published on the technology site Slashdot, begins:

"The Friday September 21 Washington Post carried an article by Ariana
Cha that I feel misrepresents my views on the role of PGP encryption
software in the September 11th terrorist attacks."

Referring to a claim in the article that he was "overwhelmed with
feelings of guilt", Zimmermann says, "I never implied that in the
interview, and specifically went out of my way to emphasise to her
that was not the case, and made her repeat back to me this point so
that she would not get it wrong in the article. This
misrepresentation is serious, because it implies that under the
duress of terrorism I have changed my principles on the importance of
cryptography for protecting privacy and civil liberties in the
information age."

Zimmermann says that due to the political sensitivity of the issue,
he had the reporter read most of the article back to him by phone,
before she submitted it for publication. He insists, "the article had
no such statement or implication when she read it to me. The article
that appeared in the Post was significantly shorter than the
original, and had the above-mentioned crucial change in wording. I
can only speculate that her editors must have taken some
inappropriate liberties in abbreviating my feelings to such an
inaccurate soundbite."

He says he told Cha, "I felt bad about the possibility of terrorists
using PGP, but that I also felt that this was outweighed by the fact
that PGP was a tool for human rights around the world, which was my
original intent in developing it ten years ago."

Speculating on the reason for the misrepresentation in the Post
article, Zimmermann says, "It appears that this nuance of reasoning
was lost on someone at the Washington Post. I imagine this may be
caused by this newspaper's staff being stretched to their limits last
week."

Zimmermann concludes his statement; "I have always enjoyed good
relations with the press over the past decade, especially with the
Washington Post. I'm sure they will get it right the next time."

Given the seriousness of the distortion that had appeared, this
reporter contacted Cha to ask if the Post would be issuing a
retraction of the article. Cha said in reply, "What I did not realise
was that some people would take the idea that he was feeling 'guilty'
would imply that he felt he did something wrong, despite the fact
that the story says he doesn't feel he made a mistake. That was not
my intention and I apologise for any misunderstanding. The way we
were thinking about 'guilt' was simply in terms of people feeling bad
or somehow responsible, even though there may be no reason for that.

She added, "I've talked to Mr. Zimmermann about this story several
times since it ran-in fact the day after the story was in the paper
he called me to thank me for it and tell me how much he liked it. He
did not mention any possible problem until this weekend when he
reached me at home." Cha said she accepted that Zimmermann, "needed
to put out a statement to clarify that he had not changed his views
that allowing the public to have strong encryption does more good
than harm."

Whatever the facts about Zimmermann's initial thoughts on the
article, his attributing the misrepresentations contained in the
article to editorial laxity is clearly not credible.

The September 21 Post article was published amidst a concerted
campaign by the Bush administration and a compliant media to channel
public opinion behind support for anti-democratic measures. The
tragic events of September 11 have been used to mount a wholesale
attack on civil liberties, one focus of which has been an
unprecedented intrusion into peoples' online privacy. Under these
conditions, it is hardly accidental that an interview commissioned
with Zimmermann is slanted to paint a picture of the man responsible
for the development of encryption consumed with grief and regret in
the aftermath of the terrorist attack. Such an article fits in with
the tenor of official propaganda insisting that so horrific is the
tragedy, only the most insensitive would object to a necessary
curtailing of civil liberties.

Zimmermann's public stance, as expressed in the Slashdot statement,
is entirely justified. Saying that the Post article "showed that I'm
not an ideologue when faced with a tragedy of this magnitude," he
continues:

"Did I re-examine my principles in the wake of this tragedy? Of
course I did. But the outcome of this re-examination was the same as
it was during the years of public debate, that strong cryptography
does more good for a democratic society than harm, even if it can be
used by terrorists. Read my lips: I have no regrets about developing
PGP."

Rather than the response to a terrorist outrage, the present moves to
curb encryption and for closer monitoring of Internet use is the
outcome of a long held desire by the security services to be able to
monitor the movements and correspondence of every individual.
Sections of the US political elite have never reconciled themselves
to having been forced to abandon the so-called "escrow" plan,
requiring decoding keys used for private messages to be given to the
government. Neither have they accepted the December 1999 decision to
abandon controls on the use of "strong encryption."

Writing in the Online section of the Guardian newspaper in Britain,
Duncan Campbell exposes the claim that encryption played a key role
in regard to the terror attacks in the US. Campbell writes, "FBI
investigators had been able to locate hundreds of email
communications, sent 30 to 45 days before the attack... The messages,
in both English and Arabic, were sent within the US and
internationally... According to the FBI, the conspirators had not
used encryption or concealment methods. Once found, the emails could
be openly read. [Emphasis added]

Campbell cites Dr Brian Gladman, formerly responsible for electronic
security at the Ministry of Defence and NATO, who "believes that the
reason that the terrorists didn't use encrypted emails is that would
have 'stood out like a sore thumb' to NSA's surveillance network,
enabling them to focus on who they were."

For the real reason for the calls for increased surveillance and a
ban on encryption, one must look back to the period immediately prior
to the terrorist attack when tens of thousands of people were
protesting against the injustices of global capital in Seattle,
Melbourne, Quebec and Genoa. It was then that media commentators and
government spokesmen began talking about the role of the Internet in
allowing people to organise on a global scale and demanded an
effective means of preventing the free association of millions of
people desirous of social and political change.

See Also:
Internet privacy threatened following terrorist attacks on US
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/isp-s24.shtml
[24 September 2001]

Copyright 1998-2001
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************