[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
For the public record: My submission for the crypto hearings (LONG)
I would encourage others to submit their opinions ASAP at:
http://www.crypto.com
Ern
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:47:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email protected]
Subject: Testimony submitted for Congressional hearings on 6/26/96
The following testimony was submitted from http://www.crypto.com/submit/
Please contact Shabbir J. Safdar at [email protected] if any information is not
correct.
Do you use encryption technogies today (e.g., PGP, etc..):
no
If no, why not:
Because it is not built in to a lot of the products I use today (e.g. email
programs)
As an Internet user, security and encryption are crucial to my
privacy because:
Both 1 and 2 equally
Tell us more about why you would (or would not) use strong
encryption as an individual Internet user:
Unlike murder, terrorism, burglary, etc, there are activities which
are socially "borderline", meaning that some people want to outlaw
but some people don't. There are activities which may be embarassing
to publicly acknowledge, but aren't really illegal.
I firmly believe in our legal system, but I also firmly believe that
there are questionable laws, and today's criminals and trouble makers
could be tomorrow's civil right advocates or Nobel peace prize
winners or freedom fighters.
Encryption does not allow these "questionable" people to murder or
harm anyone. It is just software. It is not a knife or a gun.
Unlike what the FBI wants everyone to believe, encryption does not
mean hackers can now break into the Federal Reserve and destroy the
US banking system (in fact, encryption, among many other technologies,
help protect these systems in the first place).
As a business owner or employee, security and encryption are
critical to my business because:
Both 1 and 2 equally
Tell us more about why you would (or would not) use strong
encryption as a business user of the Internet:
Hackers, viruses, industrial espionage, privacy, network traffic
control, time stamping, etc.
I don't believe, for a moment, that being a government official
exempts a person from having character flaws or less-than-saintly
behavior. I don't think they are necessarily any WORSE either,
but I believe everyone is human to some degree. There are honest
mistakes, there are less-than-honest mistakes, and there may, on
rare occasions, be horrible evil. We must hold people in power
(governmental and otherwise) to high standards, but we cannot
lower our guard just because we expect them to be saintly.
Given what you know about Key Escrow systems:
I would use an escrow system only if I could choose the key holder (including
my friends, lawyer, accountant, etc.)
Do you think that the government should be able, under certain
circumstances, for a limited time, and only with the specific authorization
of a Judge, have the authority to conduct electronic surveillance in order
protect public safety and national security?
Yes
Tell us why or why not:
I think the government should have the resources to be "above
current technology". They can invest in super-wiz-bang decryption
and surveillance technology that the ordinary person cannot buy
or make. However, if the ordinary person can buy or make it, then
it is silly to think that a law will make a criminal NOT buy or
make it. Just look at the illegal weapons trade as an example.
Encryption should be illegal if it a morally, ethically bad thing
to possess or use. However, making it illegal just because it
becomes extremely inconvenient for law enforcement is like
requiring that every room in every house be installed with a
government-approved video camera, just in case you were involved in
some illegal activity. Afterall, significant percentages of child
abuse or child molestation (or pick your favorite emotionally-charged
crime) are done within the comfort of the child's home.
This last idea, about the cameras in every room, is not that far off
in some countries. Britain has cameras in many public areas already.
It would be law enforcement's (excuse the language) "wet dream" to
have such all-seeing access. The only reason they have not asked for
it is because it would never be acceptable to the public.
But, unlike video cameras, encryption is something which very few
people understand yet, so the FBI can feel okay about asking for
something which only a few "hackers" and "liberals" are against.
What does strict control of encryption buy law enforcement?
Not much.
Encryption is only hides information, but the more globally accepted
illegal behaviors are far more tangible than information. A murder
assumes that there is a missing person or dead body or traces to be
recovered. A molested child assumes that there is a child who is
harmed. No amount of super-military strength encryption can hide
these physical things.
So this issue becomes one of why should we give up privacy for the
sheer convenience of the law enforcement community.
There is also the question of why, no matter how much escrowing,
should there be a strength limitation on encryption?
Who ELSE is trying to decode this stuff besides law enforcement,
who presummably has access to the escrowed keys?
This aspect of the pro-escrow proposals raises all sorts of
questions about just how much hidden abuse is there in the
government.
If you are not a US citizen (and live out side the US) and you
use encryption, please tell us what you use and how you obtained it.
I am now a citizen, but I was previously a citizen of Taiwan during
some very tough times. The government was honest about violation of
privacy: On the phones were clear warnings stating that you should
NOT talk about political issues over the phone; you may be tapped.
That's not a nice situation, but at least they were honest about how
widespread the use of wiretaps would be. And those were exceptional
times of crisis.
But we, in the US, are not in a time of military-grade crisis. There
is no foreseeable need for wide-spread imposition of martial law.
There is no uprising, no wide-spread terrorism of any sort. I just
do not see the need for the surveillance powers that the FBI wants.
Business name:Chromatic Research
Street:615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale
State:CA
Zip code:94089-1707
Phone number:(408) 752-9375
Business WWW URL:http://www.chromatic.com
Description of business:
High performance media processors for personal computers.
------- End of Forwarded Message