Jim: I'm almost sorry to keep up this discussion, since I agree with the tone of your article and think it's something that needs to be known. My objection is only to the section you have describing the IETF's wiretapping debate. You wrote: >In October 1999, members of the international Internet Engineering >Task Force revealed that the FBI was pressuring them to create a >"surveillance-friendly" architecture for Internet communications. The This is incorrect. The IETF "revealed" no such thing. In fact, they explicitly said (and mailing list archives back them up) the opposite: No law enforcement folks asked them to do so, and the point arose on the megaco list. (See my original article (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,31853,00.html), and in fact John's Washington Post article you attached says the same thing.) Then, after the debate became publicized in the news, the FBI said they supported the wiretapping plan. An FBI rep told me this and I wrote an article about it (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,31895,00.html). More at: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=ietf The Newsbytes article you attach below does not back up your point -- you simply read something into it that was not there. But just in case, I'm copying the author of the article and two IETF folks who were involved in the debate. Don't get me wrong. After the CALEA fiasco, I can certainly believe that the FBI would quietly lobby the IETF for wiretap backdoors. But there's a difference between suspicion and fact, and I think it's important to communicate that distinction to our readers. -Declan At 08:35 4/29/2000 -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote: >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 20:34:09 -0400 >To: Matthew Gaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Jim Bovard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: FBI & Email trapdoors > >Matt: >FYI - here's the source material on the FBI's machinations seeking a >trapdoor for email surveillance. > >Declan's FBI sources apparently have a different view of how all this came >down. > >I was aware that controversy over Echelon has been simmering off and on - >but the story broke in a big way starting last August. I shall change a >word or two in the text for the book. > >Jim > >Barr Slams Electronic "Trapdoor" Surveillance Plan > > Computers/Internet News > Source: Newsbytes News Network > Published: 10/25/99 Author: David McGuire > Posted on 10/25/1999 17:09:59 PDT by Gumption >WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1999 OCT 25 (NB) > >-- Conservative firebrand Rep. Bob Barr, R- Ga., weighed in on the >e-privacy debate today, urging the international Internet Engineering >Task Force (IETF) to resist >overtures by law enforcers to create a "surveillance-friendly" >architecture for Internet >telephony. Citing the controversial Communications Assistance to Law >Enforcement Act (CALEA) some >law enforcers have urged that "trapdoors" be built into Internet >communications programs. >"If you encourage such steps, several things will happen," Barr wrote >in a letter to IETF leader >Fred Baker. "First, network and software creators will begin building >flaws into products in >order to create back doors for law enforcement. In the process, the >security that serves as a >prerequisite and incentive for electronic commerce and communication >will be threatened." > >"Secondly, an initial demand for limited access to Internet telephone >calls will soon expand >into an ever-increasing demand for access to all voice >communications, followed by a demand >for access to e-mail and data traffic," Barr wrote. The IETF is a >not-for-profit, >non-governmental standards-setting body that develops many of the >operational protocols that allow the Internet to function. >Today's letter represents the second time this month that the largely >nonpolitical IETF has >come under scrutiny from privacy advocates. Earlier this month, some >privacy advocates warned that the newest Internet >Protocol (IP) addressing system, IPv6, could jeopardize the privacy >of Internet users. >IPv6 was developed by the IETF in response to concerns that the >previous IP, IPv4, was running out of room to >accommodate all of the individuals and networks that needed IP >numbers. In developing IPv6, >engineers opted to include a computer-specific identification number >in each IP address, >creating concern among electronic privacy proponents that the new IP >system will erode the anonymity of Internet users. >Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com . > > Copyright 1999 The Washington Post > The Washington Post > > <=1> View Related Topics > > November 10, 1999, Wednesday, Final Edition > >SECTION: FINANCIAL; Pg. E03 > >LENGTH: 764 words > >HEADLINE: A Wiretap-Friendly Net?; Group Weighs Aid to Law Enforcement > >BYLINE: John Schwartz, Washington Post Staff Writer > > BODY: > The programmers and engineers who design and maintain the Internet are >heading for a showdown with the FBI over whether the global computer network >should be made wiretap-friendly. > > The issue comes up tonight in meeting of the Internet Engineering Task >Force(IETF) in Washington. The group has been debating just how far >it should go to > The Washington Post, November 10, 1999 > > >help law enforcement officials conduct wiretaps--especially now that some >telephone traffic is moving onto the Internet. > > Internet leaders have urged the task force to avoid taking action that >might make it easier to eavesdrop on the Internet. An open letter signed by >officials of such high-tech companies as Sun Microsystems Inc. and >PSINet Inc., as >well as by privacy advocates, cryptography experts and legal >scholars, urged the group >not to build wiretapping capabilities into the network: "We believe that >such a development would harm network security, result in more >illegal activities, >diminish users' privacy, stifle innovation, and impose significant costs on >developers of communications," they wrote. > > "It is not a good decision for the future of the Internet," said Austin >Hill,founder of Internet privacy company Zero-Knowledge Systems and >author of the >anti-wiretap letter. > > Also weighing in was Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), who wrote a > letter to >the task force's chairman, Fred Baker, calling on the group to turn away any >effort to allow wiretapping "for the sake of protecting freedom, commerce, and >privacy on the Internet." > > Standing up to the FBI does not mean that the groups are "anti-law >enforcement," Barr said yesterday. "I don't think the FBI should be able to >dictate their technology simply because the FBI wants to make it easier to tap >into the Net," he said. > > A working group within the task force kicked off the debate last summer >with an e-mail discussion of what features might be necessary to make >the Internet >comply with wiretap laws. Baker said the impetus for the discussion came not >from the FBI but from the companies that make equipment used in telephone >networks; those companies fretted that their products would have to comply >with federal wiretap laws for telecommunications companies to buy them. > > The debate has raged since then, with participants espousing views >across the political spectrum. Some take a view that governments are >inherently >corrupt and wiretapping is evil; others have suggested that >compliance with government >demands for legal wiretap capabilities is inevitable, and that smooth >functioning of the Internet will be best served by designing those >capabilities in now instead of having them imposed by force at a later date. > > The task force's job is "to minimize harm to the Net as people impose > their >requirements or work out their destinies on it," said Stewart Baker, a former >general counsel for the National Security Agency whose clients now include > communications and Internet companies grappling with wiretap issues. "I > think >nothing will come of it, and I think that's probably the right result at this >stage." > > In fact, the group is likely to vote tonight against building in the extra >wiretapping capabilities, said one member of the task force, Scott O. >Bradner of Harvard University. "The consensus on the mailing list has >certainly been >against the IETF participating in any special features," he said. > > That action will almost certainly set the group on a collision course with >law enforcement. The federal law that requires makers of high-tech telephone >networks to design in wiretap capabilities--a law known as CALEA--specifically >excluded the Internet. It was "one of the central compromises of CALEA," said >James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who helped >negotiate the law. > > But FBI spokesman Barry Smith said that exception was written into the > laws >after Internet service providers promised to provide such capability, and said >that pre-CALEA wiretap provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code require the >companies to comply with legal wiretap requests. > > Smith said those setting the standards should understand that federal >wiretap laws do in fact require them to design in wiretap >capabilities. "We have every >confidence that the technical-standards-setting bodies will fulfill that >statutory requirement," Smith said. > > Baker said that the United States is not the only government that > wants the >Internet to be wiretap-friendly. "There's similar legislation driving this in >other countries--and a lot more invasive than CALEA . . . whatever we do >has to stand on a global stage," he said. > >LANGUAGE: ENGLISH <snip> > > >************************************************************************** >Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues >Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA >on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) >Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd., PMB 176, Columbus, OH 43229 >Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/ >**************************************************************************
