Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.privacy.clipper:134 sci.crypt:16023
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!nwnexus!ole!rwing!pat
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.clipper,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Hearing on 29 April 1993
Message-ID: <2112@rwing.UUCP>
Date: 26 Apr 93 17:44:52 GMT
References: <tenneyC62HqH.6s1@netcom.com> <C62oJM.CJH@News.MR.Net>
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 143

In article <C62oJM.CJH@News.MR.Net> tmplee@TIS.COM (Theodore M.P. Lee) writes:
>In article <tenneyC62HqH.6s1@netcom.com> Glenn S. Tenney,
>tenney@netcom.com writes:
>> of interest.  I understand that on 29 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 10 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 1718 
>Minnetonka, MN 55345

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (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
