Rusty Brooks |
|
I have very mixed feelings on this subject. On the one hand, I believe in
the individuals right to privacy, principally from their peers and
neighbors. On the other hand, it is constitutionally allowable to have
legal wiretaps, records searches, and the like. Unbreakable encryption
makes it impossible for law enforcement officials to do their jobs.
The use of encryption to conceal illegal activity should not be considered possible. I personally think that radar detectors should be illegal: their only purpose is to avoid getting caught breaking the law, as I see it. Encryption does have other purposes, so it's not a direct analogy. But making encryption that is impossible for the police/FBI to read gives free license to all kinds of crime, white collar and otherwise. |
Don Montgomery |
| Maybe what is needed to address your concerns is some new technology, maybe a "keyboard tap," which would send out, or save for later collection, the keystrokes typed at a terminal, and could be installed by a court order surreptitiously during a sneak break-in, like they used to do (still do) with other crime figures, only with voice "bugs." |
Rusty Brooks |
| This is problematic at best, since the juiciest things may never be touched by human hands, and thus a keyboard... the paradigm is completely different because we now have to track computers that are committing crimes! |
Don Montgomery |
| Then perhaps a surreptitiously installed virus to transmit all transactions to a court-ordered destination, or save them on some secret device. |
Rusty Brooks |
| There's a much simpler solution: when the FBI gets a warrant for your drug house, they are allowed to crack open your floor safe. They should be able to do the same for any transaction or file... I.E. they should have a master key, or some other way to decrypt anything. |
Don Montgomery |
| But what if the law-breakers are using illicit encryption, downloaded for free, or smuggled in? Oops... |
Rusty Brooks |
| Unfortunately there is no solution to this, other than making penalties for owning/using such encryption. That way, when you can't break their code, you jail them anyway for violation of encryption laws. This is similar to suspending the license of someone who refuses to take a breathalyzer. |
Don Montgomery |
| This is really where the law of omerta pays off for the mob. |
Rusty Brooks |
|
"Law of Omerta?" Not familiar with that. But I think I know what you're
getting at and I'm not sure I agree. For example, with guns being so
openly available, having a gun isn't enough to warrant suspicion of a
crime for a person who is being investigated. If guns were illegal, then
they could be used as evidence of illegal activities. The way it
currently is, gun evidence is next to useless unless there is a direct
ballistic match, which is difficult to obtain in all but the most trivial
of situations.
While it's true that only crooks would have guns if they were illegal, it's also true that _less_ crooks would have them than do right now, since they would be more difficult to obtain and get ammunition for. In addition, since just owning one would be an offense, it would be possible to convict criminals before they have a chance to use it. Also, owning a gun is unlikely to save you from anyone. There is evidence to suggest that when people have guns there is less crime due to a criminals fear of getting shot. I'm not sure the ballot is in on that since communities that support gun ownership are fundamentally different in mindset than those that don't. But back to cryptography... if it is illegal to own cop-proof encryption, then only crooks will have it. No one really loses here since crooks already have it, and your average joe is unlikely to lose out by not having it. Also, as in the gun case, less crooks will have it than now. The real issue at hand here seems to be whether or not the average citizen needs cop-proof protection. In my opinion, there are two types of people who say yes: 1) Those who wish to commit computer crimes 2) those who think there is a third class: People Who Will Get Trampled By Big Brother. I don't think there is any such third class. Certainly there will be mistakes made, certainly there will be dirty cops who use the power for ill. However, this is not fundamentally different from other types ("non-electronic") of privacy which the cops have roughly equal reign over. I don't expect that the percentage of abuses would be any higher for electronic policing than is currently prevalent for illegal searches, etc. Also, as in the case of physical illegal searches, there will be recompense from the courts: evidence obtained from illegal searches is not admissible, not matter how damning it is. If this system works for non-electronic police work, why wouldn't it work for electronic police work. This is something I feel is poorly addressed: people seem to think that electronic police work wouldn't be subject to constitutional control like other police work, that somehow Big Brother will start reading everyone's files. This is extremely unlikely since such activities would immediately end up in the supreme court. Indeed it may take a few round in the SC to get everything cleared up. In the end, the thing to watch here is the legislation, to make sure it is constitutionally safe. You can be certain that defense lawyers everywhere will be fighting for us. By the way, do you mind if I collect these emails and post them on my web page? I think a lot of good ideas get formulated in back-and-forths like this. |
Don Montgomery |
|
I totally disagree about the guns issue. Guns are used
(brandished, warning shot, or shot-to-harm) 2.5 million
times a year by citizens to protect themselves from
criminals (200k times by women to defend themselves from
sexual abuse), and only 8% of the time is an attacker shot.
And there is one on-duty officer per 1700 citizens, and no
way are we going to have enough, no matter how may police we
hire. If air was illegal, breathing could be used as
evidence of illegal activity. (Or, pick your own silly
metaphor.) (Omerta is the Sicilian code of silence.)
Guns are already illegal to use in ways that infringe the rights of others, and criminals don't respect them. To take away the law-abiding citizens right to protect himself from scoff-laws (!!) is hardly a step in the right direction. I agree with you completely on the watching of law evolution, but I don't share your trust of a system left to itself. NYC has plenty of examples of organized police and court corruption on a large scale, and I'm pretty sure myself that it happens on smaller scales as well. You can certainly post these, just don't edit them! My idiocies along with my little gems!! |
Rusty Brooks |
|
==>I totally disagree about the guns issue. Guns are used ==>(brandished, warning shot, or shot-to-harm) 2.5 million ==>times a year by citizens to protect themselves from ==>criminals (200k times by women to defend themselves from ==>sexual abuse), and only 8% of the time is an attacker shot. ==>And there is one on-duty officer per 1700 citizens, and no ==>way are we going to have enough, no matter how may police we ==>hire. I didn't intend to get into a gun control debate, but here are a few stats of my own. The stat you quoted (2.5 mill) is from the NRA. The National Crime Victimization Survey quotes something more like 80,000. Still, quite a few. However, guns are used against family member 3 times as often as criminals. Homicide, suicide, and fatal accidents are much more prevalent in homes with guns. (The above quotes from The Boston Globe editorial) ==>If air was illegal, breathing could be used as
There is a strong correlation between owning a gun and committing a crime. Not quite so with breathing. Also a gun is not required, as oxygen is. The metaphor sounds good but doesn't carry far. ==>Guns are already illegal to use in ways that infringe the
My point was that if there are legal ways to own guns, it's somewhat difficult to enforce usage. Usage is difficult to monitor, whereas purchase/sale/production is much easier. Criminals are able to "disrespect" gun laws because it's so easy to get them legally and pretty easy to avoid getting caught using one. Also, a search revealing a gun under current law wouldn't link a suspect to a case unless it was the same model of gun, which is often inconclusive and difficult to prove. If guns were illegal, finding a gun would be evidence of illegal activity and might prove stronger proof for indictment. ==>I agree with you completely on the watching of law
I wasn't especially expressing trust. The way I feel is that the whole encryption thing is blown out of proportion. It seems like there could be a problem, so a lot of people think there is without truly weighing the issues against current legal practice. (much like the Y2K scam). I think that defense lawyers and civil activists will lead the way in this issue and there hasn't been a lot of noise from these people, which indicates to me that they don't see a threat. There is a tendency with computer users to value their privacy, although no one is really sure why, beyond the need to keep your credit cards and phone number private (although I don't even think the last is necessary). People who are VERY casual with non-computer info are very guarded with their computer secrets and resent having their encryption taken away. Much of the resistance is on purely libertarian grounds, which tends to knee-jerk reactions on civil liberties. I think the whole thing rests of non-electronic privacy: currently most sources of information are non-encrypted or even non encryptable: telephone, mail, spoken word, documents around the house etc. The government has as much, or more ability to read these documents as it would if we had police-decryptable systems. In other words, proposed encryption standards which are police friendly are _no different_ than the status quo. Yet people act as if somehow we are back sliding... Odd. |
Don Montgomery |
| Bats, crowbars, and knives are used for crimes, too, but have other legitimate uses. The fact is, outlawing guns now is too mush like closing the barn after the livestock has escaped. There are plenty of them in circulation already. Point in case: it's been years since the manufacture of hi-capacity magazines was banned, and there are still plenty available from pre-ban that are not even premium-priced. Guns in general have a 300-year jump on the invention of hi-cap magazines---when will we run out of them? BTW, is there some reason to doubt the NRA? |
Rusty Brooks |
|
Well, I doubt special interest groups in general. If a survey hasn't
been done by an institution that _doesn't_ pour millions into lobbying I
don't tend to believe it. The fact that our two surveys report a
discrepancy of more than a factor or 180 on the ratio of good/bad gun use,
and a factor of 30 on the number of defenses with guns means there's
something fishy going on in one or both surveys.
Beyond that, if you'll forgive me, there's some pretty ridiculous rhetoric that comes out of the NRA. And I classify them as a group that defends rights purely on the grounds of defending rights, without considering the impacts. |