Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Legislating Insecure Encryption

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the no-deadbolts-for-you dept.

Encryption 290

firewort writes: "Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire), who called for global backdoors in encryption products in a floor speech last week, is readying legislation. This is another push for backdoors - but it seems that Gregg wants them to be used cautiously, only with permission from a US Supreme court appointed commission, subject to normal search and seizure rules." Representative Goodlatte, who has supported strong encryption before, is one of the few people speaking out against this.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335441)

Yeah, I'm a dork.

Did your last presentation flatline? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335466)

Then click on the advertisement at the top of the screen.

This is scary (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335447)

Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties? As we all know, this bill has been proposed that would require back doors (or weaker encryption) in all encryption products, which is NOT okay in my book. I'm all in favor of heightened security carried out in an intelligent manner, but this is completely ridiculous.

Black Belt Terrorists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335591)

You are not alone! No amount of security is ever going to protect us - period! If the next terrorists are accomplished black belt artists, what amount of banning weapons, knives, aerosal spray cans or metal detectors going to do to stop them?. It Won't! So called increased security will accomplish one thing in the end - the death of freedom. Isn't that what the big boys in power have always wanted? One only has to look at history at manufactured events to fear a people into surrendering their freedom and their republic. The two most prominent examples would be the takeover by Ceaser with machinations of Crassus and Hitler's takeover in 1933.

Here is my theory. This attach is the first of a two-step totaltarian takeover. Sept 11th's events will be used to channel billions into restructuring the current bureacracy into a totaltarian system waiting to be unleased. Then once the new bureacracy is in place - perhaps in one years time, we will see another conveneint terrorist attack. Except this time it will be much more devasting - probably biological. Once that happens and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of innocent american lives are lost. The totaltarian bureacracy will be unleased, and we will all be too willing to let it happen. The United States will become the largest and most powerful totaltarian system in the history of the world. And who or what will end it? China? ha!

Get ready for a long and rough road folks. The grand conspiracy that the paranoids have been rambling about for decades has finally come.

I'm packing my bags and leaving the country. But alas, its no longer the 20th century - there is no place left to hide!

You can't have it both ways. (0, Flamebait)

b0z (191086) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335648)

Congress is not using the terrorist attack as a "blank check" to do whatever they want. It is obvious that within the many speeches the president and others have given, that we can't allow the terrorist acts to change America. This includes restricting our freedoms, or letting us live in fear. I have faith that our governmental representatives are going to do what is right to ensure our safety, and do it within the confines of the system of checks and balances that have always existed within the government.

We all know that encryption is hardly used except by criminals and the paranoid. I am not trying to flame people, but it's the honest truth. Personally, I don't use it nor does anyone I know. However, I think it's ok if someone needs to send an email with some information that needs to be protected. The problem is that criminals are abusing these encryption systems to commit crimes. It's not like it will hurt Joe Linuxbob to send an unencrypted email to his friend Don Window. The ones it will hurt are the ones that are comitting crimes against the people of this country, and those who are escaping law enforcement. We hire these people to protect us, we pay them taxes, yet you don't want to allow them to do their jobs? Why? Why do you hate your fellow Americans so much that you would permit criminals to contact each other in private and murder thousands, as evidenced on the 11th.

It is your duty as an American to protect your country and love your fellow Americans. In order to protect all of us, we might have to allow the government, under strict, controlled circumstances, to view our email once in a while. Which would you rather have happen? Would you prefer to be ran into a building at 600+ mph and burn in a fiery inferno along with thousands of others, or perhaps be inconvenienced of the government seeing you send porn to your geek friends at school?

True freedom requires security of those freedoms. To be secure, you might have to give up some of your liberties.

Re:You can't have it both ways. (1)

iamblades (238964) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335699)

Sure, I guess you've never bought anything off the internet... Almost everyone that uses the internet uses some type of encryption, even if it is only SSL...

Re:This is scary (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335652)

I'm all in favor of heightened security carried out in an intelligent manner, but this is completely ridiculous.

This is not heightened security, it is lowered security!

Basically it makes the whole society using such a thing much more vulnerable. Just think of the possibility of some enemy (a State, terrorists, business competitors) getting keys for something important? Don't tell me it isn't possible! The head of the german intelligence agency (BND) was a spy for the Stasi for years. Other examples exist. And there is still no convincing argument that backdoors would hgelp at all.

Second post. (1)

Pheersum (243554) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335449)

Everyone knows that any law that the government can abuse, it will abuse. Can anyone dispute the fact that it'll be using these backdoors routinely, if illegally, a few years down the line?
BTW, SECOND POST BITCHES!!!

Security (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335454)

...is only as good as its weakest link.

Think of that what you will.

Re:Security (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335505)

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

Re:Security (1)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335526)

And *YOU* are the weakest link! Goodbye!

Re:Security (1)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335531)

Speaking of weak links, what effect do people suppose this is going to have on academia? If I'm doing research in information theory, linguistics, etc. and I come up with some way to make even stronger encryption (or, more practically, some way to make strong encryption with some cute trick for better key management) can I distribute it? Since the 2600 case has found that programs aren't protected speech.... if they outlaw the export of encryption "devices", device in this case including a description of how a thing works, does that mean I can't publish my "device" in a foreign journal? Could the journal I published in not be exported? Do our elected officials need glass belly buttons, or what?

Re:Security (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335578)

You don't need to publish any code in order to publish a cipher. Describing the algorithm would be enough. And that can still be done, even in the US. It is far harder to suppress descriptions that are not executable than to suppress executable code.

If they start making descriptions illegal, a lot of basic mathematical literature would be illegal very soon, e.g. most texts on Modern Algebra,
Information Theory or Number Theory (among others). Not really feasible without a totalitarian regime.

Re:Security (1)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335646)

My understanding had been (I find an indirect reference to this so maybe the reporter is wrong) that the ruling included the Object code (in whatsoever language it was written, my friend wrote a compiler that turned the first page of King Lear into DeCSS - much more clever than a pretty picture), and the Object code _is_ just a description. Fine, so we suppose there's a difference between a description and a description-that-some-automated-routine-somewhere- can-understand. Sure, whatever.

While you _can_ just publish a truly abstract description of the algorithm, especially in a pure math journal, applied math journals generally want to see you do it. Although, I'm sure the reviewers would be sympathetic if that were _illegal_. Regardless, we know that researchers who come up with something like that are going to want to code it to test their theories - is that going to be illegal? Are they going to have to add the backdoor (even if that somehow jams up there whole gig) to make the program legal? Doesn't that mean that they'll have to be *given* the back door, whatever on earth it actually is, so that they can make sure it decodes their message? Will they have to turn the source code over to the government before publication so that the government can add the backdoor? I'm running on too long here but am I missing some obvious solution to this seeming logical disjoint, or does this outlaw any innovation in encryption at all?

Re:Security (2)

mangu (126918) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335616)

if they outlaw the export of encryption "devices", device in this case including a description of how a thing works


If they outlaw a description of something, that would abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press. Can't throw away the First Amendment without another amendment to the Constitution of the USA. Sure, they cold outlaw the export of those descriptions, but how could they keep something that is freely published in the USA to leak away?

Re:Security (1)

SonCorn (301537) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335696)

Personally what I find scary, and has been brought up many times before on Slashdot, is the question of what happens when some script kiddie gets a hold of the backdoor. Then anyone will end up being able to download the algorithm or password to read ANY encrypted file. The kid will probably just end up getting some probationary period as they are still under 18 and the rest of us will pay with having no secure commercial product available. It will basically start another grassroots effort to make our own encryption programs that have no backdoors. This will be against the law and I really can't see where the cycle will end.

I don't think that is our main concern (2)

tester13 (186772) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335455)

I am not worried about law enforcement reading my email per se. What I'm concerned about is my competitor, enemy, or boss having access to my personal communications.

Making a deliberate flaw in a scheme makes this more possible as we all know.

Re:I don't think that is our main concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335493)

Companies who've legally purchased allotments of government have the right to access whatever information such allotment has access to.

Duh (1)

iggyflashbulb (244946) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335457)

This sort of legislation will only hinder criminals that obey the law.

Re:Duh (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335528)

Is there an article in the law saying criminals may not use those backdoors? If not, criminals all over the world will be actively cracking all sorts of communications between American law enforcement agencies.

Re:Duh (1)

iggyflashbulb (244946) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335552)

Your warez link doesn't work :(

If Osama was really crafty, he'd have his people here in the US lobbying for this bill.

It's either this senator's arrogance or ignorance that allows him to think US laws will affect criminals in other nations. Perhaps it's both.

Re:Duh (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335586)

Exactly. Hint: Layered Encryption.

It seems some Senators do not bother to have things they do not understand explained to them by experts.

Oh Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335609)

I don't know why people keep saying that. If this were the law, criminals using strong encryption would immediately draw attention to themselves, which is the last thing they want. And by using the encryption they would already be breaking the law and could be arrested and further investigated for that.

Re:Oh Really? (1)

iggyflashbulb (244946) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335700)

Check out the other poster who mentioned layered encryption.

Also, they could easily hide encrypted messages within gif images or other media. There are many ways make it impossible to detect an encrypted message for all practical purposes.

These laws would make it difficult or illegal for innocent people to have private information, but would have no effect on criminal activity.

hi! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335460)

hi! i am natalie portman! please contact me at 1-900-natalie!

NO! DON'T CALL THAT NUMBER! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335477)

It's really Bruce Perens in disguise!

Re:NO! DON'T CALL THAT NUMBER! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335504)

He sure is hot then!

/me fucks him in his Amidalic Ass!

Incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335521)

It is actually Tom Christiansen [warmann.com] . Nice to see people commemorating the work of osm, at any rate.

NO! DONT CALL THAT NUMBER! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335520)

It's really a long detailed verbal description of the of goatse.cx "reciever"!

I'm glad someone is against it (2, Insightful)

progbuc (461388) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335462)

The problem with these tragedies is that everyone is scared of being for encyrption and privacy for fear of being seen as sympathetic to terrorism and not getting re-elected. I'm glad there are at least one senator that can see that this was a horrible tragedy, but that that shouldn't change everyone else's rights.

Re:I'm glad someone is against it (1)

OutOfMind (204804) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335551)

Exactly! No one wants to give their opponents during the next election cycle (or for many election cycles to come) any pretext for labeling him or her as "pro-terrorist". Think of our elected officials fear of being labelled "pro-drug" and up a few orders of magnitude.

~k

I thought the New Hampshire state motto was... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335463)

Live Free or Die.

I guess I have it wrong.

As an NH citizen (1)

BgJonson79 (129962) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335464)

Lemme tell you, I will not be re-electing this guy. He's always been the lesser of evils in the past, but I guess he didn't like second place.

WTC attack - an absurd Liberal myth (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335472)

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have allowed themselves to be so swiftly deluded by a fraudulent fabrication of such ridiculous proportions. The very idea that not one, but two jumbo jets would crash themselves into a famous New York skyscraper -- in broad daylight with vigilant air-traffic controllers and tight airport security watching every move of every craft in the air -- is laughable. Furthermore, it is a horrendous affront to the world-renowned intellect and common sense of the American people. The fact that anyone could actually believe this is evidence that the Liberals -- after decades of waging war against intellectual integrity and honesty -- have finally ripped the few remaining, tenuous strands of control of our educational system from full-blooded, hard-working, God-fearing Americans.

As such wonderful documentaries as The Siege have so articulately exposed, the Liberal masterminds in Berkeley and their toadies throughout the nation have been silently waging war against the American people and their God-given rights to protect themselves, their worship, their family values, and their hard work. Much of this has been conducted under the guise of preventing "terrorism", a meaningless word engineered by radical left-wingers specifically to bring fear into the heart of honest Americans. Think about it -- can you remember any reference to so-called "terrorism" that occurred before Liberals invaded our government offices in the last decade? Of course you can't, because despite whatever the revisionist histories may tell you, there is no mention of any "terrorism" in classic literature before 1980. Only then did the neo-Marxists invent such absurd figures as Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden in order to legitimize their anti-freedom agenda, drowning the spirit of the American people in a blatantly-engineered machine of fear and mourning for "victims" of these "terrorist attacks".

In fact, it should be incredibly obvious that the concept of a 110-story building even being built, much less two, is a clear and obvious fraud. No documentation of these "twin towers" existed before a "terrorist attack" occured on the previously-nonexistent pair of skyscrapers on September the 11th. Due to this hoax being perpetrated by the Liberal-controlled media, suddenly people all over the world mourned the loss of thousands of people who had not existed before. Innocent men and women, brainwashed by the left-wing education institutions, gave firsthand accounts of losing relatives they never had until the "attack" happened.

But the most outrageous aspect of this hoax is the "Pentagon" -- a government office fabricated especially for this purpose. Liberal media claims this imaginary building to be "the center of America's defense system", although obviously an organization as proud and God-fearing as the United States Military would never think to station themselves in a building of five sides, so obviously close to the pentagram, mark of Lucifer himself. It is insulting to the nation's intelligence that eight hundred members of the world's proudest institution would be made to meet their Lord by something as graceful, efficient, and secure as our country's fine aviation system.

Don't let the devious tricks of the Liberals allow you, a citizen of the greatest nation this Earth has ever or will ever know, to surrender your freedoms. Any lesser nation would have succumbed to their wills long ago, and indeed the socialist states in Europe already have. It is only the superior resilience, pride, and intellect of America that has allowed it to withstand the constant threat of Liberal control.

Re:WTC attack - an absurd Liberal myth (1)

iggyflashbulb (244946) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335485)

rotflmao

Re:WTC attack - an absurd Liberal myth (1)

iggyflashbulb (244946) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335494)

Yeah, obviously W is a liberal media created myth as well. Who could believe a chimp could actually become president?

WRONG! WTC attack - an Illuminati conspiracy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335498)

Musings on the * 11 * Correlation (Mass Mind Control Cues?)

* The date of the attack - 9/11 - 9+1+1=11

* Phone number to report life threatening events = 911

* Flight 11 hit the Twin Towers ("eleven - shaped" building)

* Flight 11 had 92 on board : 9+2=11

* Flight 77 had 65 on board : 6+5=11

* September 11 th is the 254th day of the year 2+5+4=11

* After September 11th there are 111 days left to the end of the year

* State of New York - 11th state to be added to the Union

* New York City - 11 letters

* Afghanistan - 11 letters

* The Pentagon - 11 letters

* Date 9 - 11 - 1 : 9 x 111 = 999

* The quatrain X.72 of Nostradamus, one of the world most famous persons from the 16th century: L'an mil neuf cent nonante neuf sept mois, Du ciel viendra um grand Roy d'effrayeur Ressusciter le grand Roy d'Angoulmois Avant après Mars regner par bonheur." Translated: the number 1 999 - a cryptic reference not necessarily the year 1999 - perhaps

"the year of the millennium - 999" SEPT (the 7th month), from the sky will come a great frightning king. The great king of Angoulmois is revived. Before and after Mars reigns."

* Sibyl of Prague, an old woman (17th century) "From the east a dragon will come, terrible to look at, because from its 9 times 99 eyes (1999?), mortal rays will be emitted and a poisonous air leaves its mouth".

* Alois Irlmaier (1894-1959) was a simple Christian man who lived in Freilassing, Germany. During his life, he did several prophecies correctly, helping the police to discover criminals... etc. He spoke on the third war, and according to him, it would begin anywhere exactly after the murder of a big one near the Arabs and a murder in the Balkans. "I see three nines, but I don't know what this means.

Read more about these amazing coincidences at the Watcher's website [mt.net] .

Re:WTC attack - an absurd Liberal myth (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335499)

Fnord!

The end of liberty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335474)



Law enforcement officials are taking
advantage of the war on terrorism to get
everything they ever wanted.

___

By Damien Cave and Katharine Mieszkowski

Sept. 22, 2001 | Northwest Airlines kicked three Arab-American men off a flight from Minneapolis to Philadelphia Friday, simply because other passengers refused to fly on the same plane with them. The airline defended removing the men from the plane, saying that security rules gave it permission to "reaccommodate" passengers. The Council on American-Islamic Relations reacted immediately: "This is racial and religious profiling of the worst kind. Both the passengers and the airplane personnel should be ashamed of their actions."

[...]



more [salon.com]

As I've said before... (5, Informative)

Zwack (27039) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335476)

And I will keep on saying it.

Now is the time to contact your representative, your senators and probably even your local media and tell them exactly how much damage this legislation could do.

Tell them about encryption used to protect your online banking transactions. Tell them about encryption used to protect company secrets. Tell them that this is bad for trade. Tell them that this is bad for innovation (unless you're Microsoft I guess)... Tell them how you feel about it.

Don't just sit back and let this go through. If nobody says "this is bad" then it will be passed...

While telling your congress critters, be polite, spell check before sending. Fax and/or write rather than e-mail. Call them and talk to them. But however you do it, make sure that your voice is heard.

Zwack.

p.s. Yes, I've already written to my congress critters.

Re:As I've said before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335659)

Companies shouldn't have secrets. What are they hiding that they don't want people to see? People always complain about Microsoft hiding their trade secrets and being an unfair practice, and now you want to protect them? I just don't get it.

would it make more sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335674)

wouldn't it make more sense if we just applied current laws and required that, upon presentation of an appropriate warrent, you had to decrypt documents and files that the authorities tell you to decrypt rather than having some third parties do it for you and them?



I'd contact my reps but i honestly don't care anymore. If they don't legislate it now, they'll do it next year or the one after that. We're fighting a losing battle.

what happens (1)

jrs (27486) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335478)

What happens when regular script kiddies discover how to use it?

Worse, our enemys.

script kiddies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335479)

Wow, the script kiddies will just love it. A backdoor built in, no endless searching for bufffer overflows. Of course the criminals will just use OLDER versions of encryption. This is why people who have no clue shouldnt be allowed to make decisions for those who have clues. People are gonna be real pist when the key to this gets loose and all their credit card information banking information and medical records are wide open.

AFAC Reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335480)

Greetings, I am from the American Federation of Anonymous Cowards (AFAC) here to reply to the article, titled "Legislating Insecure Encryption."

We here at the AFAC vehemently oppose passage of such a ludicrous idea.

We also proudly stand by Representative Goodlatte with confidence and are willing to provide any means necessary to guarantee that this idea does not pass.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous Coward AFAC Representative #2193

Passing another law (2)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335484)

Perhaps we should pass a law specifically against crashing airplanes into buildings. As far as I know there isn't a law *specifically* against this, and we all know that *everyone* follows every law all the time. We probably need both a federal statute and numerous state and local ordinances to let would-be terrorists know we're serious.

What's wrong with this picture? (2)

Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335487)

Judd Gregg was definitely around in the Senate when the last encryption debate went through, and all the same reasons we bring forth today were found valid and worthy.

The WTC disaster does not change the validity of a single one of those reasons, namely:

1) Strong encryption is vitally necessary to any digital communication involving business and finance.

2) Strong encryption is worthless if backdoors are placed into it- see Matt Blaze's skillful discovery of every single law enforcement key within the Clipper system.

So, why does this debate continue? My only guess is strong emotions combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being discussed on the part of Mr. Gregg.

Re:What's wrong with this picture? (1)

tsprad (160992) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335589)

These people are not stupid. What's really going on here?

It's got to be about money, or power, or both. Who benefits from this? I can no longer believe these people care at all about who they can put in prison. We already have so many in prison that running prisons is big business.

Who benefits?

Re:What's wrong with this picture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335681)

the government.

also see: how hitler came into power and lead a nazi-germany

take away the rights. take away the privacy. monitor and threaten everyone. gain control. do what you wish

Alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335488)

If the problem is access to information, why not strengthen NSA's cracking computers. Not weaken the available encryption out there. weakening encryption allows little brother and big brother to have access. Strengthening cracking computers with raw power only allows big brother access to encryption.

Re:Alternative (0)

Penrod Pooch (466103) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335511)

Well, the point is that big brother shouldn't have access.

Besides, NSA are not the only ones who can afford big computers.

Re:Alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335519)

the NSA already does have access, your fooling yourself if you think they don't. The only thing encrytion does is slow them down so it might take a few hours instead of a few seconds to get to your information.

Re:Alternative (0)

Penrod Pooch (466103) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335565)

The NSA does NOT have access to every encrypted mail sent on the internet. There are not enough supercomputers around to crack them all. Maybe they can crack a few per day when it is real important, but most people are not important enough.

The latest and greatest from Congress (1)

PM4RK5 (265536) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335490)

Yep. Somehow it is utterly un-surprising that Congress is using this as an excuse to take away more of our basic rights. The day the WTC and Pentagon were hit I could tell instantly that Congress was going to take this and turn it in to "If you want more national security, you have to give up personal security." Anyway, we cannot allow this to happen. You can draw a parrallel:

Congress:People
Terrorists:USA

Because only will of the people will be able to overcome the legislation that congress proposes, just as the will of the USA and other countries would be able to overcome the terrorists. And both the terrorists and congress are going to end up taking our rights away, as Congress is using the terrorist's acts to "justify" taking away rights for "national security."

I end this with a note of hope: You elected your Congressmen (and Congresswomen), so now to maintain your rights, you need to call them or E-Mail them. They are there to represent YOU, so let them know how you feel!

Free country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335497)

OpenBSD is developed in Canada for a reason:

To get away from US Government bullshit like this.

Compliance (1)

motherhead (344331) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335501)


How about those of us using secure encryption now? Will using non-compromised versions of PgP be a felony? Will having a copy on your hard drive be dangerous?

The other day I was at the office store, puttzing around the crappy software (though Office Max is carrying various Linux distros.) and I noticed they were selling a nice boxed Pgp + firewall+ miscellaneous crap product from Macaffe called "network security" or something like that. Made me wonder how they are going to root all the sheeple out there that can barely maintain their windows boxen out from the supposed "terrorists".

Strange days indeed.

Haiku Fun (-1)

Trollerball (520569) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335507)

Fuck you! Fuck You, You!
YOU!! Fuckyoufuckyou! FUUUCK YOOOUUUU!!!
Fuck You. You. Fuck..... You.

Die Terrorist Scum (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335513)

GOD BLESS THE USA
By Lee Greenwood [leegreenwood.com]

If tomorrow all the things were gone
I'd worked for all my life
And I had to start again
With just my children and my wife
I'd thank my lucky stars
To be living here today
Cause the flag still stands for freedom
And they can't take that away

And I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
But I won't forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
And I gladly stand up
Next to you
And defend her still today
Cause there ain't no doubt
I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.

From the lakes of Minnesota
To the hills of Tennessee
Across the plains of Texas
From sea to shining sea
From Detroit down to Houston
And New York to L.A.
There's pride in every American heart
And it's time we stand and say

That I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
And I gladly stand up
Next to you
And defend her still today
Cause there ain't no doubt
I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.

Re:Die Terrorist Scum (0)

Penrod Pooch (466103) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335580)

He ripped that shit off from Woody Guthrie

Physical transportation of data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335516)

I remember something on CNN about people in bin Laden's network using ZIP disks insted of sending via the Internet. Which makes this useless. After all, it's the reason the started using disks insted of the Internet for transfering data in the first place.

What's the point? (2)

dragons_flight (515217) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335518)

So let me get this right, he wants to create legislation that won't stop bad guys because A) it only effects the US and B) the bad guys wouldn't bother using backdoored software AND he want's to mire it in quasi-judicial controls so that the bureaucracy will make use of the backdoor a rare and slow event (at least for legal government purposes).

If it wasn't for the fact that any such restrictions impose an extra burden on software/hardware manufacturers and limit the security of encryption, I'd start to think this was nothing but feel good legislation that would never accomplish anything. Sure doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything good.

Re:What's the point? (1)

tsprad (160992) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335574)

An extra burden on the software/hardware manufacturers so they can justify raising prices, so they can contribute more to political campaigns?

What, cynical? Me?

Encryption (1)

lavaforge (245529) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335524)

And how will anti-encryption laws stop terrorists who meet face to face?

Re:Encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335536)

Thats what camera's on the street and directional microphones are for.

Re:Encryption (1)

azzy (86427) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335554)

Doh.. didn't you know that terrorists are highly organised?
They don't just meet face to face.. they first of all e-mail each other with the agenda of the next meeting detailing all the points to be discussed.. not to mention the minutes of the last meeting in case there is disagreement in how accurate they were.
In order to appear legal these e-mails are _always_ encrypted with Governmentally reccomended encryption programmes.

Re:Encryption (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335585)

The same law says all terrorists must have a backdoor like this [goatse.cx]

Re:Encryption (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335603)

Not at all. Same with terrorists that use plain, old-fashioned letters (on paper!). Same with allowing no knives into airplanes.

When will they finally start to face the truth? The most dangerous weapons are people! Equipment is not critical for terrorism,
especially when the terrorists do not intend to survive! The only way to stop these people is to invalidate their motives!

Goodlatte the crypto idiot savant of VA politics (2)

browser_war_pow (100778) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335525)

On the issue of encryption Goodlatte is usually right on target. He has been vehemently oppose to laws which would limit its accessability to average Americans. However on other issues he is a total nut in my opinion. He is staunchly pro-DMCA and is proud that he took a part in its creation.

Yet as a Virginian I'm ashamed that someone from my state played a role in the creation of such an anti-American bill. Give the man kudos for defending crypto in Congress at a time like this, but don't think that he is a freedom-loving politician. He said at my high school (I'm a freshman in college now) that if he had it his way he'd abolish our lottery because there are "better uses" for people's money than a lottery. $1-$5 a week for the hope of striking it big is a bad thing? $1-$5 a week invested in further funding our state's infrastructure is a bad thing? $1-$5 more invested in an education system which is #7 in the nation in passing the AP tests is a bad thing? And finally $1-$5 a week invested in the same education system that has one of the highest passage rates in the nation on some of the most rigorous standardized tests in the nation?

Now is the time for us to be holding our republican values (and I don't mean the party) more dearly than ever. The purpose of establishing a republic and not a new monarchy for our people was to break the cycle of tyranny. Let's remember what happened to the Roman Republic. By the same token, let's learn from the lessons of the past so the American Republic doesn't go the same way.

Freedom is the greatest casualty (1)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335529)

During wartime, to the technically illiterate (most journalists and lawmakers), it feels morally unquestionable that innocent civilians should give up their right to privacy so that secret communications amongst terrorists be made as difficult as possible.

2 problems though:
1) Anti-encryption (and mandatory backdoor laws) simply won't work - terrorists will just get smarter at hiding/smuggling data. While the fanatical will is there, terrorists will find ways around any law.
2) Even if/when all terrorist groups are wiped off the planet, long after the first McDonalds opens up in downtown Kabul, no government is going to relax anti-privacy laws. The spectre of terrorism will persist in the American psyche for decades.

If the terrorists' aim was to wipe out America, then they have a long way to go and will most likely fail.
But if their aim was just to destroy much of the freedom average Americans enjoy, (jealousy?), then they have succeeded brilliantly.

Re:Freedom is the greatest casualty (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335627)

If the terrorists' aim was to wipe out America, then they have a long way to go and will most likely fail.
But if their aim was just to destroy much of the freedom average Americans enjoy, (jealousy?), then they have succeeded brilliantly.


And that is exactly the way to go for people that want a change but have no power by themselves: Nudge some giant into doing their work. To call the US a "free country" is getting more and more of a bad joke recently. Not that we europeans didn't have our suspicions about the nonexistent US privacy laws all along.

backdoor, my ass....err that came out wrong.... (1)

laymil (14940) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335533)

the biggest problem i can see with backdoors in encrytion is misuse. if we legally must have these backdoors, then anything that prevents misuse is a good thing (tm). however, i can see that older versions of encryption software might become more and more popular if backdoors are legally required........

ban crypto (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335535)

I would rather see cryptography banned outright than legislation to require back doors.

If there are back doors, they WILL be exploited by the wrong people while creating the ILLUSION of security. Crypto back doors create a huge opportunity for economic terrorism. If people know there is no security of data transmission, they will more likely treat the media accordingly.

Of course, this will spell the end of on-line business and be a huge hit on the economy both in the short and long term but why should that stop futile attempts to "do something" to stop terrorism?

The world is built on illusions... (1)

iggyflashbulb (244946) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335684)

...because illusions are cheaper than the real thing and almost as effective.

The value of the US dollar is an illusion, not explicitly based on anything but the illusory values of other currency.

The new security measures they've put in place at airports are not more secure than before, they just provide stronger illusion. You could easily hide a knife in the sole of your shoe or elsewhere.

The US government inefficiently employs millions of people in needless jobs, thereby providing an illusion of stability.

Obviously US military security is an illusion if a jumbo jet can fly into its headquarters.

Belief in such lies keeps money moving and people placated, which are the two things that divide society from anarchy.

As long as an illusion holds, why take the effort to make it a concrete reality?

So let's pass this bill and perpetuate the illusion that governments can be trusted.

backdoor.h for PGP (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335540)

How will this work in the open source comunity?. Does any one else here think that M$ is just jumping for joy and calling on their paid senators to intorduce legislation to do away with GNU/GPL software , as it is obviously dangerous to have the source codes of programs availible.

Or do we just write 'backdoor.h' for all new encryption progs? ... think about it, this is nonsense.

This must be stopped. Also the test of the proposed new internet bills have little goodies like DNA databases for all felons and sex offenders? .... how does this fight terrorism.

Atty Gen Ashcroft and his ilk are just trying to turn the US into a police state on the backs of the victoms of the Sept 11 trajic events, and spit on the graves of every serviceman that died fighing for 'freedom'

The new White House press conference will no dought look like CLICK HERE TO SEE [bihlertech.com] ----- THIS

Re:backdoor.h for PGP (1)

reverius (471142) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335621)

It does seem a bit suspicious to me that the SSSCA (Security Systems Standards and Certification Act) and the backdoor-encryption stuff are going through congress at the same time.

I think somebody's (more than one person...) is pushing an anti-free-software agenda here.

Both of these bills, if passed, would make every linux distribution completely illegal and a felony to use. :(

Phil Zimmerman feels responsible for 9-11 (2)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335548)

Check it out:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/706443.h tm l

Basically, Phil feels responsible for helping the terrorists.

Re:Phil Zimmerman feels responsible for 9-11 (2)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335602)

Please at least read the article you're linking to (and get the link [startribune.com] straight, while you're at it) before posting something like that.

In the article, the actual quotes attributed to Zimmerman show that he feels badly about the events, but in no way do they indicate that he feels responsible for them. I think this one sums it up (in regards to some hate mail he received):

"He raises some points that many people are raising right now, namely that terrorists can use the technology," Zimmermann said. "But it overlooks the strong need for good crypto."

Congress, Privacy and 1984 (1)

chamoru16 (522476) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335550)

Congress has an opportunity to do something that they have wanted to do for some time - control public opinion about privacy and encryption. In recent years, as the use of the Internet for ecommerce picked up and became acceptable, the public opinion was strongly in favor of personal privacy and the tools used to ensure it. As we all know, encryption is one of the major tools that allowed people that privacy, security, safety and confidence. Encryption technology, from enigma to Zimmerman and PGP to the present, has been a problem for the intelligence agencies in the US and around the world. Congress tried to control it, but thanks to strong public opinion in favor of Privacy, encryption was winning the battle. The public demanded it and the industry gave it to them (sometimes).

Now, September 11th arrives and stuns the world. The country mourns, but Congress, like any good capitalist, seizes the opportunity to capitalize. They used media and the attack to sway public opinion. People now seem open to sacrificing their 1st amendment rights and eventually their personal privacy for a temporary safety.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

It appears, Congress has done an excellent job of swaying the public opinion about Privacy and used Sept. 11 as the slight of hand trick. Introducing the BACK DOOR policy to encryption is only another step towards 1984 in this database nation. I don't care how they state it in legislation or how they much it is supposed to abide by the normal search and seizure laws.

Re:Congress, Privacy and 1984 (0)

Penrod Pooch (466103) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335598)

"Those who post cliches on slashdot deserve neither karma nor higher than 0 ratings for their posts."
-- Penrod Pooch

OK. It's time to start wrtiing congress people... (1)

Rhinobird (151521) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335562)

Here's where you can write your representative (House): http://www.house.gov/writerep/ [house.gov]
Here's some tips on contacting your congresspeople: (both house and senate) http://nch.ari.net/advocate.html [ari.net]
From congress.gov's faq : http://thomas.loc.gov/tfaqs/02.htm [loc.gov] (How can I communicate with a Member of Congress )

I would suggest sending more than just an email. One member of congress already said he would only respond to snail mail because of all the ?spam? he was recieving (can't find the particulars of that one though...)

I'm sure that a few other people can find plenty of coherent well thought out reasons why this won't work and is generally a bad a thing...

What if this goes international? (2)

eldurbarn (111734) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335566)

What if this sort of idea goes international?



I can imagine it, now: Mr Terrorist uses the encryption product for which his local government (for example, the Taliban) holds the back door key. The U.S. court sez that it wants to read the mail. The U.S. then sends a nice, polite letter to the Taliban asking for that key...



When where freezes over?

Who thought this one out? (1)

Jinjuro (523623) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335570)

By saying that they want backdoors in encryption, they are basically saying that if this gets passed that there are atleast two ways in...and knowing that, i think many more people would try to crack it knowing that their odds of success have just doubled. Theres no feasable way to enforce this either unless they have something set up to decrypt everyones transmissions (using this backdoor) and flag those messages that cannot be decrypted. This would not only mean that they had the ability to read whatevery you send, but that they may actually be doing it in one form or another to all things! And this would be unlikable.

How would this work in OSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335571)

Could someone comment on the technicalities of implementing this in OSS? AFAIK this would now simply require someone with programming skills to remove the backdoor - or how has the master key in the first place?. How would this change the world?

- A new place for .com junkies to find employment?
- Microsoft PR: Linux is a virus: Terrorists use Linux

Beginning of a US congressional database (2)

Adam J. Richter (17693) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335596)

I'd like to see someone create a web database on politicians' voting records on issues relevant within the technical community (ideally with some kind of interface for selecting which issues you care about, and even in which direction). Hopefully, this would help people make more informed decisions, and, just the public knowledge that such a database is being compiled and published might influence legislative decisions a bit.

Anyhow, here is a small start. I would encourage anyone with additional data to post it right here. I'll try to add it to this list, and perhaps someone more ambitious will be able to browse the follow-ups and start a real web database on this.

United States Senate:

CALIFORNIA: Diane Feinstein, Democrat, Bad
- Co-sponsored "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001"
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00 .html
o Elected in 1992 (short term), 1994, 2000, 2006

MICHIGAN: Carl(?) Levin, Democrat
+ Argued against "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judd Greg, Republican, Bad
- Called for crypto key escrow after World Trade Center bombing
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00 .html
o http://www.senate.gov/~gregg/body_about_judd_gregg .html
o Elected in 1998, 2004?

UTAH: Orrin Hatch, Republican, Mixed
+ Suggested mandatory licensing for online music copyrights
- Co-sponsored "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001"
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00 .html
o Elected in 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000?, 2006?

VERMONT: Patrick Leahy, Democrat, Good
+ Argued against "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001"
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00 .html
o 1974...1998, 2004?

United States House of Representatives:
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, 6th District, Republican, Good
+ Co-sponsored lifting of encryption controls
+ Speaking out against encryption controls after World Trade
Center Bombing. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7249721.html

Zoe Lofgren, California, Democrat, 16th District, Good
+ Co-sponsored lifting of encryption controls

Congressional Universe (1)

whovian (107062) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335653)

This site appears to have the records while you are asking for a subset. I am sure somebody would be willing to assemble the data.

See http://web.lexis-nexis.com/congcomp

Select Members option.

It also has info on bills sponsored, campaign contributions, and more. Disclaimer: I am not affliated with this site.

Backdoored encryption is NOT encryption (4, Informative)

Lostman (172654) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335599)

I have posted on this topic quite a few times before, but I must post again.

I enjoy working with encryption and number theory. I enjoy the theory behind encryption and why it works so successfully.. I will try to explain how it works (to a point) and this is a BIG reason why backdoored encryption can't work.

For this example: Assume use of RSA encryption

The way that this encryption works is it finds a function f[x] that is (to a point) one way. (NOTE: impossible [as of yet] to prove that it is a true one way function but the lower limit on finding the function has never been solved.. so for all purposes as of yet it is oneway). That is... f[k] == k' (k' being encrypted version of k). The way this works is that the function f[x] which is known by everyone and the value k' could be known by someone and still not be able to convert k' back to k. This is serious advanced number theory and requires very specialized hard-to-find functions.

To allow backdoors (that can be used without having a persons program but only the encoded message) is saying that the function f[x] must be modified to the point that there exists a function g[x] (for each SPECIALIZED function f[x] [that is, each persons f[x] is different, but g[x] must decode all of them]) that can decode any function f[x]'s input. Translation: f[k]==k' but g*[k']==k (for any function f[x] specialized). This function g[x] must be found when working out the base of the encryption product and once the function f[x] is worked out so g[x] exist, it stops being a one way function and therefor stops being useful.

So basically, if this happens, we might as all just encode our messages with rot13 and it will be the same as using any new "government approved" encryption... because someone somewhere WILL leak the functions g[x], whatever[x] (for each encryption product).

(For those who are curious, the reason each f[x] is tailored to a specific person is the picking of the keys allows a "trapdoor" as RSA puts it: another part of the function f[x] that is not mandated at production time. Of course, if a g[x] can decrypt the f[x] (no matter specialized) then the trapdoor theory is useless and serves no purpose therefor weakening it to a childs toy)

And yes, I know I am speaking to the choir here.. the thing is a long time ago I was reading slashdot when someone spoke about encryption and the basics of encryption theory.. it got me interested enough to look at it myself and now I am intrigued by it and am always learning more. My example may have small errors in it.. I hope someone can call me on them if they notice--> its always best to be factually correct...

Thanks.

Foreign governments (1)

kanthoney (80093) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335608)

According to Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier, it's been claimed that the French DGSE (their equivalent of the NSA) has "openly boasted of using commercial intelligence to help French companies win bidding wars for large contracts."

Even if that's not true, how do you guard against the possibility of this happening?

total impractical (2)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335615)

Somebody needs to shine the Flashlight of Reason into the Dark Corner of Stupidity don't you think?

How can this possibly be enforced? I have books, and files on my computer, describing most common encryption and public key methods. I could almost write an RSA encryption program from memory, and I certainly could write a program to XOR with a LFSR or a one-time pad.

The dumbed down articles always talk about how "complex" and "sophisticated" encryption is, but it's not really that complex, once you know the formulas. Anyone with high-school math could probably understand many of the algorithms. You could explain a one-time pad in terms of adding and subtracting.

And what is a legal definition of encryption anyway? If I XOR all my files with a constant byte, or if my ISP or the FBI happens to be looking and they don't recognize the file format and somebody calls the cops, how the hell am I going to explain how it's not encryption? Or will it be like the DMCA, and encryption will be anything they feel like.

And are they going to somehow take away my SSH that I use almost every day to do work as a sysadmin? I get paid to secure systems, should I tell my clients "This encryption is difficult to crack. Except for the government and anyone else who figures out the back door. Sorry."

Totally crazy and impractical.

In other news... (2)

mj6798 (514047) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335626)

Sen. Judd Gregg also reintroduced legislation to make the value of pi equal to 3. "We cannot afford the inefficiencies resulting from the oddball values of pi some fringe academics have dreamed up. Our new wartime economy must be efficient, and to help with this effort, Congress will adopt legislation that will greatly simplify the design of common military hardware like wheels and gears," said Sen. Judd Gregg in a televised statement.

Most lawmakers have NO technical education. (2)

Futurepower(tm) (228467) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335632)


From the story referenced above:

"That's like telling people to take their house key down to the police station," Goodlatte said. "People are not going to have greater confidence in their security by doing that."

Good analogy. These things must be made simple, because most lawmakers have no technical education whatsoever. Did I say NONE at all? As in Duhhhh!


Secret U.S. government agencies control U.S. violence: What Should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]

My letter to congressmen hand-delivered yesterday (2)

dpilot (134227) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335636)

I dismissed privacy concerns as being currently out of fashion. I *wish* that I had done the same for practicality concerns, because we all agree that truly controlling the flow of such information is impossible.

I emphasized that there are many different crypto channels, and to be effective they'd have to weaken every one of them, because terrorists could simply shift to a different channel if, for instance PGP email were back-doored or weakened.

Then I explained that any inserted backdoor could be rediscovered within a reasonable time. I wish I had had access to the Clipper references mentioned here. But I was also struggling to keep this on one side of one page, so perhaps it doesn't matter.

Finally I added that the safety of our financial and network infrastructure depends on some of these alternate crypto channels, and to compromise them would put us at risk. SSH and https: were mentioned examples.

There, a case based on things other than privacy or practicality.

Enforcement? (2)

stuccoguy (441799) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335647)

Much has been said over the last week about the government's ability to enforce such a law. One groups says that outlaws and terrorist will obviously refuse to use such weak encryption and others respond that law enforcement will then be able to indict them for violation of the back door law.


This second argument is specious for two reasons.


First, any law forbidding strong encryption without a back door could be binding on the sender of messages only. The receiver of a message encrypted without a back door could hardly be held legally liable for the action of another. Therefore, if the head of a terrorist organization outside of the US used strong encryption to send messages to terrorists inside the US, no law has been broken. The backdoor law is not extra-territorial and cannot ban someone outside the US from using non-backdoor encryption, and the receiver in the US cannot be held liable simply for receiving such a message.


Second, the argument assumes that law enforcement can somehow detect whether or not a message is encrypted using a backdoor program or not. The ability for law enforcement to archive messages and search through their contents is truly staggering, but it is not all powerful. It takes many many computer cycles to sift through unencrypted data searching for words or phrases in order to be useful at all. There is no indication that anyone would have the computational power to sift through archived messages to determine if a message is encrpted or not, yet alone whether it was encrypted with lawful or unlawful software. Making such a determination on the fly would be absolutely impossible.


Unless, of course, messages encrypted with compliant software contained flags set at specific bits to alert law enforcement to the presence of lawfully encrypted text. If that was the case, however, terrorist and other non-crypto-law abiding people could simply alter the open source code for their non-compliant crypto package to add the special bits. Law enforcement would still be unable to determine on the fly whether a message was lawfully encrypted or not.

That leaves them only one alternative. They would have to try to decode all encrypted messages on the fly in order to determine which were lawfully encrypted. That action in and of itself would violate the privacy rights of anyone whose message was decrypted simply to determine if it was lawfully encrypted.


Furthermore (or more precisely, once again), the ability to capture all messages and attempt to decrypt them on the fly in order to determine which where lawful and which were not is currently a technologically impossible task.

Toll-free raghead complaint line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335649)

If you are like most Americans, the sight of Middle Eastern ragheads and sand niggers make you sick to your stomach. Now there is something you can do about it. The 7-11 convenience stores have a toll-free complaint line. If you have any problem with 7-11, they suggest you call their toll-free complaint number. Well, I am damn sick of all the raghead sand nigger towel head muslim filth working at 7-11 while they are planning their next terrorist attack. Now is the time to call 7-11 and complain. Tell them you want Americans in those stores, and that all the Pakis and sand niggers should get the boot:
Toll-Free 7-11 Raghead Complaint Line 1-800-255-0711
Do your part and send those Pakis packing!

FOLLOW THE ISRAELI LEAD!! (-1)

egg troll (515396) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335654)

Quotes from Janes.com:

Israel has considered many options in dealing with the threat. In August, Israeli deputy public security minister, Gidon Ezra, called for eliminating the relatives of suicide bombers as a deterrent. Radio Monte Carlo on 22 August aired the possible Hamas response to such an Israeli policy in an interview with Sheikh Yassin who said: "This means that he would give the Palestinian resistance men the justification to kill all Israelis who have relatives working in the ranks of the Israeli army." Ezra also suggested burying suicide bombers with pig skin or blood, defiling the corpse and thereby making the shaheed ineligible for holy martyr status with a promised place in heaven

Cool! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2335662)

I like the part about the pigskin and blood; shoving a couple pounds of pork lard up their ass and down their throat would be a good idea too.

What are they trying to achieve? (1)

forgoil (104808) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335664)

1. One time pads
2. Easy to code your own software with the information available right now
3. Software from non-US countries
4. Code languages of different kinds

And just so you know, the blueberries are ripe on the east side of endor...

What you can do... (2)

Nugget94M (3631) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335677)

Please consider joining or donating to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] or at the very least send off the proposed correspondence from their page on this subject [eff.org] .

Based in San Francisco, EFF is a donor-supported membership organization working to protect our fundamental rights regardless of technology; to educate the press, policymakers and the general public about civil liberties issues related to technology; and to act as a defender of those liberties. Among our various activities, EFF opposes misguided legislation, initiates and defends court cases preserving individuals' rights, launches global public campaigns, introduces leading edge proposals and papers, hosts frequent educational events, engages the press regularly, and publishes a comprehensive archive of digital civil liberties information at one of the most linked-to websites in the world.

And it needs our support to ensure that it is forever capable of supporting us against legislation that seeks to eliminate our rights and privacies.

Talking Points Against Key Escrow (2)

bwt (68845) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335685)

Here are the talking points against this abominations:

1. It's a total waste of time unless you have a plan to force the terrorists to use weak encryption.
2. Centralized key escrow creates a single point of failure for our national cybersecurity infrastructure.
3. Strong crypto can be defeated and has been defeated in the real world. You use existing wiretap laws to implement keyboard sniffers and the like to grab cleartext.
4. You have to be prepared to use keyboard sniffers ANYWAY, because the terrorists aren't going to comply with your law.
5. The bill violates the free speech rights of ordinary citizens and businesses. Conversion from already deployed strong crypto to crippled crypto is an effort comparable to Y2K.
6. Stop using this as an excuse for the intelligence failure. It's bogus. These terrorists made credit card purchases, airline reservations, flight school training, apartment leases using real names sometimes even on our "watch list".
7. Are we really willing to punish otherwise law abiding citizens who fail to register their crypto key? Who needs terrorists when the governement will destroy your rights for you?
8. Security cannot be achieved by weakening security. What is security if not the protection of citizen's rights?
9. The law cannot be enforced, and it's violation isn't even detectable. If you find an encrypted message, how will you know it wasn't made before the ban?

Identity? (1)

f1ght4fr33d0m (523020) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335697)

You sure this is Sen. Judd Gregg and not Judge Dredd?...

Good Latt? (1)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 13 years ago | (#2335701)

Is this the representative from Starbucks? Still, I support him in everything he does. And when he's up for re-election I'll vote for him. Everyone knows that Mayor McCheese is a crook.

Sweat
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?