Re: Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation (For Treason)

[Mark Atwood]

"Robert G. Ferrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 My response to this situation has been to [...] answer questions
 they have if I can.  You'd be surprised how much difference you can
 make, if you try.

That is very thoughtful of you, yet personally foolish. (*Not* a
personal attack or disparagment of your intellect.) There are many
many people who thought they were just "helping out" cops, "answerings
a few questions", "helping them understand", who found themselves on
the business end of an inditement, often a misguided one.

Even if you educate the agent you are talking to, he has peers and
superiours who are clueless and looking for "points".

The ONLY ONLY ONLY thing you ever say to a LEO is "no" and "speak to
my lawyer".

-- 
Mark Atwood   | 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | 

Re: Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation (For Treason)

[Fred Baker]

At 09:29 AM 12/2/99 -0600, Robert G. Ferrell wrote:
While I think that continuing constructive critical dialogue is essential to 
the health of the nation and its government, I also think that acknowledging 
the fact that most FBI agents do the very best they can with what they have 
is important, as well.  It's satisfying and entertaining to criticize cops
and 
call them stupid, but my guess is that we'd be a lot worse off without them...

Just my opinion, of course.

For the record, mine as well. If there is a current issue here, that has a
bearing on IETF procedure, I think we should surface and discuss that, but
I'm concerned with the tone of the discussion so far, and don't see its
immediate relevance to protocol development in the present time frame.

I have sent a private note to Bill and Scott asking if there are further
issues the IESG should be concerned about.

Re: Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation (For Treason)

[tytso]

   Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:40:06 -0800 (PST)
   From: Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]

   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.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't strike me as completely accurate either.
The FBI is not *required* to investigate anything.  There are all sorts
of laws on the books which are outdated (including those those which
regulate what two consenting, heterosexual, married adults may do in the
privacy of their own bedroom) which the executive branch at state and
local levels have the discretion not to enforce.  The same is true at
the federal level.

If it's that easy to force the FBI to initiate such "routine
investigations", it would be pretty easy to chew up all of their
resources chasing red herrings.  This was an investigation that spanned
three calendar years, remember!  This couldn't have been cheap for the
FBI.  (Hmm... maybe more people should tell the FBI that so-and-so may
have exported encryption technology on their laptop without filing the
proper export licenses which are required, and make them spend even more
time chasing their own tails. :-)

That being said, I agree with your conclusion that it probably was
someone who got didn't like Simpson's sometimes quite abrasive personal
style, and decided to make some trouble for Bill.  It's not what I would
consider professional behaviour, but there's no way we can really judge
the motives of whoever it was decided to call the FBI and sic them on
Simpson.

The other thing to keep in mind was this was back in 1991, when it
wasn't quite so obvious to all concerned that the attempts by the NSA
and FBI to restict encryption was as misguided and as futile as it is
now.  So what is obviously stupid and ridiculous behaviour on the FBI's
part in 1999 might not have been so ridiculous eight years ago.  As I
recall, back then the FBI was still trying to figure out how to spell
"Internet", let alone figure out what it meant.

- Ted