re hearing on april in article c ojm cjh news mr net tmplee tis com theodore m p lee writes in article tenneyc hqh s netcom com glenn s tenney tenney netcom com writes of interest i understand that on april mr markey will be holding a hearing on the questions raised in this letter there may also be a follow on hearing dedicated to the clipper chip but that s not definite glenn thanks for posting that i was surprised to notice however that one question i might have expected to be asked was not are all forms of strong encryption other than the clipper to be made illegal speaking of which is anyone aware of whether that question has been asked of any knowledgeable or official spokesperson for the government i have not yet seen it mentioned in any of a dozen places it might have been reported but i could have easily missed it please let us know if you get a solid answer to the question of legality of other strong cryptosystems so far any references i have seen have been weasel words more plans in the future etc but nothing that could be taken as a no strong crypto will not be outlawed i have heard not verified that the crime bill before congress has language that either requires escrow of keys or that will regard all systems unapproved for public use like strong cryptosystems not trivially broken by the govt or without escrowed keys which one cannot readily change read use being only permitted by folks with special connections or government agencies as either terrorist tools or drug dealers tools not outlawed specifically but by added civil forfeiture powers and clever wording effectively outlawed for all intents and purposes now for some idle speculation for those who don t care hit n now crypto being effectively outlawed could be done without specifically outlawing any class of crypto systems for example a crowbar hammers screwdrivers and such can be regarded as burglar tools pretty much at the whim of the authorities based primarily on the individual possessing them in the car etc not being in a trade that makes routine use of these tools in a like manner one who has no legitimate need gov t definition for strong crypto software or systems and is caught using them might find themselves in possession of terrorist tools in other words if one is not working for a corporation with extremely sensitive commercial data that warrants in the fed s opinion strong security or a government agency and securing only work related data not personal data one will most likely be nailed on this if discoverd a personal desire for privacy most certainly will not be regarded as a legitimate need why do you want such strong security especially from legitimate law enforcement an individual with legitimate endeavors would not be so concerned government is not in the business of revealing your personal secrets to the public so you must be trying to conceal or planning to conceal some unlawful or criminal activity do you have something to hide hmmmm i expect that initially there will be some people selected either at random or who happen to have been troublemakers for the purposes of making an example for those who think the feds are not serious about this mega s one asking about a right to privacy will probably get a response that there is no constitutional right for privacy spelled out as such an argument used in the abortion debate you do not have a right to have security that legitimate law enforcement cannot break as suggested in the clipper press release this in a nutshell is what i find so extremely frightening not only for crypto systems as in this case but for the precident it will set laying the groundwork for future erosions of privacy escrow of both safe deposit box keys master keys or combinations for privately owned safes and so on why not i cannot think of a better way to make an end run around those inconvenient parts of the us constitution a law cannot be easily declared unconstitutional if it there is no specific law it would simply be a minor extension of the rico statutes or wod policies a simple policy decision just like so many of the gun regulations are mainly batf policy decisions the conversation of the fed agents would go something like we are gonna seize your home your computers your car your bank account you don t have to undress and give us yer clothes unless you have a floppy in yer pocket because they are all connected with your acquisition transport and use of terrorist tools and or drug dealers tools part of the wod or against terrorism ya unnerstand no decent american subject would be against these noble causes note we are not accusing you of any wrong doing we are only saying your home computers car bank assets are connected with wrong doing somehow they housed transported and funded these terrorist tools only a civil matter heh heh we had this tip grin therefore the constitutional protection on individual rights do not apply we are arresting the tainted property not you evil grin if you wish to deposit a bond hire some attorneys and go to court to prove the innocence of this property that they are not terrorist tools and again to prove they are not also drug dealers tools go ahead we have no problem with that course with your bank assets seized no car computer or home probably no job too and your less than limitless resources you might run into some minor practical difficulties grin that is what has me going so damned ballistic it is exactly how the logic goes when someone gives a tip that your home has been used to store drugs note no trace of drugs need to be found on the property only some bozo who will say yup i stored stuff in that dude s house probably to get out of a year sentence for dealing much more cost effective to let him walk to bust another day and hit the jackpot with your assets ob disclaimer of course ok note that i am not a lawyer and can only base these speculations on what i have read heard been told regarding past civil forfeiture cases and how they are used to augment the budgets of assorted agencies or to get cooperation of folks who just want to be left alone or who do not wish to be put in a risky situation especially in areas where they are denied either meaningful police protection and the means to be able to even pretend to defend themselves as is quite common back east like nj ma nyc wa dc or out west in ca these people have the choice of cowering under the government boot or cowering under threats of pissed off drug dealing gang bangers helpless in either case all behind some dude who drops a dime on you for his gain or behind the feds wanting to make an example civil forfeiture being the hook point is are these speculations way out of line or are they all too typical and if so does the extension to crypto and just about anything that the feds regard as inconvenient seem reasonable and if not why not what are our guarantees besides the government promises none ted lee trusted information system inc tmplee tis com po box minnetonka mn pat rwing uucp without prejudice ucc pat myrto seattle wa if all else fails try uunet pilchuck rwing pat wisdom only two things are infinite the universe and human stupidity and i am not sure about the former albert einstien
