Mr. Novak's Monday, June 28th article on
encryption versus the FBI and the DEA is quite
misleading, and I would like to set the record
straight.
1. The issue floating in Congress is about export
of encryption technology, not domestic use.
Domestic production and use is and has always been
unrestricted. Of course, the FBI and the NSA have
been desperately trying to attach domestic
restrictions of various flavors ("key escrow",
"key recovery", outright bans, licensing, etc ...)
to any bill they can, but so far have not
succeeded.
2. Mr. Novak's rhetoric claims that this is some
rich kid trying to get even richer at the expense
of the safety of poor grandma's in ghetto
neighborhoods. In fact, this is has never been
Bill Gate's cause.
a. This is the cause of many programmers who
feel that they should not be subject to
multi-million dollar fines and years in jail
just because they communicate to each other in
everyday programming languages. Musicians
certainly aren't subject to national security
export control when they exchange sheet music.
Chef's aren't subject to national security
export control when they exchange dessert
recipes. Why must programmers be subject to
export control when they exchange programs?
(This is a First Amendment issue.)
b. This is also the cause of human rights
activists who are trying desperately to bring
democracy to such countries as China, North
Korean, Peru, etc. Encryption provides
protection against government who do not
respect human rights.
c. Furthermore, there are activists opposing
the current and many of the proposed
expansions of global surveillence systems such
as Echelon. What is clear is that the NSA and
its counter parts in the UKUSA agreement, has
long been out of the reach of Congressional
oversight committees, and has operated with
impunity.
1) Mr Novak should ask himself why the NSA
is the first government agency ever to
invoke attorney-client priviledges when
recently asked by its Congressional
oversight committees to disclose its
intercept practices for review.
2) In addition, Mr Novak should ask
himself why is it that every time someone
proposes a law prohibitting foreign spies
from spying here, the NSA has lobbied to
kill the bill. Isn't one of NSA's
mandates to protect Americans from being
spied upon?
d. Lastly, there is no guarantee anywhere
that says law enforcement is entitled to
understand what you say over phones or the
Internet. Otherwise, Navajo would be
outlawed. Technical jargons would be
outlawed. Truth would be mandated;
violations would be punishable by criminal
penalties. Should humor be licensed? I
seriously doubt Mr. Novak is ready to ask
Congress to legislate truth.
(This is also a First Amendment issue.)
In short, it might have been convenient for Bill
Gates to pick it up to win some brownie points
with the rest of the industry, and it might make
some business sense to the Microsoft empire, but
just as Al Gore did not invent the Internet, nor
did Bill Gates start the crypto freedom movement.
2. Export restrictions, on its face, do not stop
any of the stereo type "bad guys" from keeping
their data secret.
Just ask any scientist, mathematician or
programmer whether the current export regulations
make sense, and you will find that almost no one
believes it can do what the government claims it
does; that is, prevent terrorists, pedophiles and
drug dealers from using encryption the government
cannot decode. Remember, the current status quo
is extremely strict export control; we have always
had much stricter than export control in most
other countries. And yet, none of this has
prevented terrorists from encrypting their files.
3. Most other countries did not care about
encryption until the US forced them to sign and
abide by Wassenaar and related treaties and
conventions.
Canada is in the midst of being pressured to shut
its borders on encryption exports. Just watch.
All this hoopla over the launch of a spy-quality
satellite will end up squeezing the encryption
software developers in Canada. Japan did not care
about encryption exports until a Japanese company
opening advertised that it has developed an RSA
encryption chip. Suddenly, everything quieted,
and it became really difficult to get an export
permit in Japan. What is clear is that the US is
the quiet hand forcing the issue behind the
scenes. Look at ILETS and EU's recently adopted
Enfopol proposal. How much public comments from
the Europeans were received on this? Zero. How
many ministers voted on this issue? None. Who
was directing this? The NSA (as well as members
of the GCHQ from UK.) FOIA'ed documents prove
that law enforcement has nothing to do with this.
They are just used as the PR front because the NSA
needs lots of legitimate bogeymen now that the
Cold War is over.
What is clear from all of this is that the NSA is
trying desperately to not only protect but EXPAND
its technical intercept capabilities. In
addition, they are looking to legalize a massive
invasion of privacy which no democratic country
would openly embrace. Despite the fact that
simple encryption is quickly and easily turning
their multi-billion dollar Echelon network into a
useless junk heap, the NSA is still trying to make
this decades-old concept work for them. Many
administration officials have admitted as much
that this is the ultimate desperate attempt to
salvage a technology which the NSA has sunk way
too much resources into, and that their business
of raw communications intercepts will pretty much
be over by the end of the next decade.
Instead, what Mr. Novak appears to be advocating
is that we deliberately weaken the information
infrastructure of tomorrow to save yesterday's spy
technology.
If he really buys what the FBI and the NSA is
spoon-feeding him, how about something even more
important and closer to home ...
What would Mr. Novak say if the FBI were to ask
everyone here and in Europe to plant cameras in
every neighborhood street corner?
How about, in every room in their houses?
Oh, and, of course, these would ONLY be used with
legally authorized court orders. You certainly
wouldn't want your lil' Suzy and Johnny be
molested by anyone? Would you?
What was that statistic? That over 60% of all
child abuse occurs within the homes of the
victims, committed by people the victims trusted?
THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN AT RISK!!!
WE MUST SAVE OUR CHILDREN!!!
So what do you say, Mr. Novak?
--------
Ernest Hua, TeraLogic Inc, Mountain View, CA
[EMAIL PROTECTED], (650) 526-6064
