Re: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)

[nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com]

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Lizard, you're missing the point. 
> 
> First, the NETcenter was sold to the Commerce cmte yesterday as a way to
> perform successful cryptanalysis on enciphered documents. The rhetoric was
> all about keeping codebreakers up to date with codemakers. To anyone with
> a glimmering of a clue about modern cryptography, this is complete
> bullshit. Industry lobbyists on Monday also tried to push this line at a
> press conference; I called them on it and they said, no, I was wrong, this
> center would let the FBI keep up with the times. Yeah right.

I think you are among the most vocal when saying that congress has no
clue.  Replace GAK snake-oil with a cryptographic-moonshot snake-oil
proposal (with branch offices in key districts) and it becomes clearer.
Move the superconducting supercollider folks to quantum supercomputing.

If they can believe myths that crime and terrorism will increase
exponentially if strong crypto is made available, they should also believe
that for a few billion, they will be able to crack PGP (sans GAK).  When
it doesn't work, they will demand a few billion more every few years
instead of demanding GAK which will close down their bureaucracy.  They
may say they want to be the GAKers, but then you will have to replace all
the number theory consultants with database consultants.

> Second, the NSA already performs these duties. Whether they should be
> allowed to or not is a different argument. 

But they don't tell the FBI everything.

> Third, there's no funding appropriated for the NETcenter. It's useless
> without it. Again, it's bullshit.

There will be.  Congress finds ways to fund useless projects.

> Fourth, even industry lobbyists admitted to me privately yesterday that
> NETcenter was a scam designed entirely to head off Oxley.

Ssshhhh! someone hear you.

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---