Re: Federal key registration agency

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 04:27 PM 6/18/96 +0200, TM Peters wrote:
>Compuserve Online Today Daily Edition, 15 June 1996:
>
>Attorney General Janet Reno is advancing a plan to establish a new agency
>overseeing all digital encryption, saying that would make it tougher for
>criminals and terrorists to use the Internet to carry out crimes.
[...]
>Reno added, "We look only to make existing law apply to new technology,"

Such a claim is bogus.  "existing law" already "applies" to new technology.  
It's just that this only means that cops think they have a right to wiretap. 
 It does not mean that they are able to usefully understand the meaning of 
what they hear.


>adding new computer programs designed to crack the new complicated
>encryptions take too long to be useful to law enforcement. 

Like a billion years too long, huh?

> "Some of our
>most important prosecutions have depended on wire taps."

But is the average citizen substantially impacted by crimes that would be 
assisted by good encryption?  Probably not.  

>She also said registration of keys might end up being a worldwide
>requirement, since the Internet is used increasingly for international
>communication, commerce, and criminal enterprise.

She forgot to mention REVOLUTION.

>Reno told the group that effectively regulating electronic encryption will
>depend on finding a balance between protecting privacy interests while
>stopping criminals from cashing in on the new technology.

I see no need for a "balance."  I think that the advent of good encryption 
has the effect of increasing the security of individuals.


>"If we do our job right citizens will enjoy the Information Age without
>being victimized" by high technology, Reno said.

Maybe she should have said, "without toppling the government-employed 
parasites from their positions of power."



>United Press International
>Charles Bowen

Another one of those organizations threatened by media-bypass.
Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com