[2317] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Rivest's Wheat & Chaff - A crypto alternative
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perry E. Metzger)
Mon Mar 23 14:19:23 1998
To: Marc Horowitz <marc@cygnus.com>
cc: Vin McLellan <vin@shore.net>, cryptography@c2.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "23 Mar 1998 12:20:29 EST."
<t53emztgw82.fsf@rover.cygnus.com>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:11:25 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Marc Horowitz writes:
> Ron's chaffing technique is technically interesting, but I don't think
> it's the Answer. What is to prevent the BXA from declaring that
> chaffing software is an EI, and therefore export controlled?
Nothing.
I agree with you that the problem is the desire of the FBI and NSA to
read all message traffic, even if implementing that desire REDUCES
national security and the ability of ordinary citizens to avoid being
victims of crime. (The cost of not universally deploying crypto is
measured in the billions, but presumably that is nothing compared to
the desire of folks at NSA and the FBI to maintain the status quo and
(presumably) their jobs.)
So long as the government feels it knows better than the citizens (and
you thought you lived in a democracy!) and insists on stopping us from
being able to talk privately, no technology that prevents
eavesdropping, be it encryption, "chaffing", or anything else, will be
safe from attempts at bans. The INTENT of the laws is the problem, not
the laws themselves. The intent, of course, is to leave people
defenseless against eavesdropping.
The fact that the widespread deployment of cryptographic technologies
would be a potent tool against crime is immaterial to the FBI and
NSA. They are not stupid people, so we must presume that their goal is
not to try to defend the U.S. public, so much as it is to preserve and
protect their own departments.
Perry
