On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> We learned that
> William Allen Simpson, a Detroit-based computer
> consultant who was on the IETF staff, has been
> investigated by the federal government for treason
> charges.
Having been one of those interviewed by the FBI WRT W.A. Simpson, and
having been party to the PPP activity at the time, I think I can probably
comment with a bit of authority. Frankly, Bill brought the investigation
upon himself.
> Simpson was the person that argued loudly for
> encryption to be included in the PPP protocol when it was
> still in design phases.
He argued no more loudly or softly than did I or a number of other people
working on PPP at the time. We were not investigated so clearly the
reason was NOT because he advocated encryption in PPP.
> That push landed Simpson in hot
> whatever with federal officials. Simpson learned through
> friends that he was under investigation for treason --
> the FBI had been interviewing his friends and associates.
Treason is a strong word. Yes he was investigated for commission of a
crime but no charges were ever brought.
During my interview I asked the FBI agent what had prompted the
investigation of Mr. Simpson. The agent stated that the FBI had received
reports that Bill Simpson had publically stated that he had actually
exported encryption technology and they were required to investigate. He
also stated that it appeared to be a non-issue but that policy required
the investigation. He surmised that the report had come from someone who
just wanted to cause difficulty for Mr. Simpson.
> Simpson obtained 54 pages of documents from the
> government under the Freedom of Information act, however
> the documents were heavily censored, including the
> bureau's basis for the investigation. According to a ZDTV
> report,
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/cybercrime/chaostheory/story/0,3700,2398590,00.html
>
> Simpson did learn that the FBI had accused him of
> "challenging authority and laws that may impinge upon his
> activities."
Surprise, surprise! When you make a statement like, "no one can stop me
from exporting encryption software," you leave yourself rather open to
having someone report you for breaking the law. All someone had to say
to the FBI was, "Bill Simpson boasted that he had exported restricted
encryption software from the country." Whether accurate or not, this
combined with his other public statements was sufficient to trigger a
routine investigation. It doesn't appear to me that the FBI was on a
witch hunt.
> Wait a second! Isn't that part of what the Constitution
> is all about--the means to peacefully object to the laws
> of the land? I think so. And if that's true, then that
> certainly positions the FBI in a bad light since it would
> appear their actions are counter to the Consitutional
> rights.
Pardon me but, horse hocky! We are not talking about objecting to the
laws but rather how the FBI reacted to a report of a crime. Even tho'
they were pretty sure that they had been handed a red herring they were
still required to investigate. Makes sense to me.
> It not against the law to develop strong
> cryptography, but it is against the law to export that
> technology outside of proper governmental controls. The
> PPP protocol did not have encryption at the time--it was
> only a suggested inclusion--so why investigate a person
> for doing something completely legal?
But that is not WHY he was investigated. Bill was investigated because
someone reported that he had committed a crime. He reinforced the
impression by making indiscrete, public comments. His antisocial behavior
at the IETF has made him enemies here and I suspect that someone who
disliked him saw the opportunity to take advantage of Mr. Simpson's
indiscretion in order to cause him trouble.
> The IETF is an open public standards body that conducts
> its business in clear public view. They help stear
> standards that better ensure compatibility and
> interoperability. So why would the FBI investigate an
> IETF member just because that person suggested in a
> public meeting that strong encryption be included in a
> standard wide-spread protocol such as PPP?
<sigh> It would do you well to do a bit more research into the events
before trotting Mr. Simpson out as the party wronged by the federal
authorities. Mr. Simpson may have been wronged but it was by someone a
bit closer to home, not by the FBI.
And before any of you get any ideas, no, it wasn't me.
> Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for
> the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
Fairly? This seems like yellow journalism to me.
> Jai Maharaj
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Om Shanti
Brian Lloyd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1.530.676.6513
