[3713] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: my two cents
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Hedges)
Sat Dec 5 11:07:58 1998
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 19:21:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Hedges <hedges@infonex.com>
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <87d85zjuv3.fsf@jekyll.piermont.com>
State legislatures have already memorialized the US congress (example,
California, in 97 or 96) to relax cryptography controls. It should be
obvious by now that the United States is not a democracy, but a nation
ruled by wealth, power, and force. You may not be correct that it is 'not
what the electorate wants,' since a good portion of the electorate doesn't
understand the full scope of the situation. (Ask any random person who saw
"Enemy of the State" if they think the technologies depicted in the film
are realistic.) The US has been waging illegal foreign wars against
countless foes, both popular and not, both seemingly just and seemingly
not, for decades, if not for over a hundred years. A large portion of the
electorate voted an army officer who knew of and ordered forces to ignore
the import of cocaine by his trainees into a senate seat as he touted the
'war on drugs'. The IC/LEA organisations in their capacities above and
beyond mere defense of security (pre-emptive threat modeling, intelligence
analysis, and active measures, i.e. conquest) are threatened by the ease
of strong cryptography because it is an elegant and extremely simple
defense against their method of livelihood, power gain, and profit. They
are fighting for their life, and they have guns, money, and
supercomputers. I personally do not estimate they will win, not because of
my own actions in the game, but because they chronically weight the game
against their favor in the long term, by increasing overall insecurity
while their paranoia convinces them they are increasing their security
with their socially divisive and elitist tactics. They risk losing the
presence of Justice on their side, if they haven't lost her already, and
she is a formidible enemy in war. However, toppling such a large giant
with such a simple stone is dangerous-- the giant can fall and crush
innocent bystanders who, to their credit, are not aware of the giant's
presence because of the difference of scale. This is a consequence of a
political position against that force. As a politician, if you fail, you
lose your career or your life. If you succeed, you start a war. That is
not desireable given the technical destructive capability of the players
involved, unless you are insane. Some among the IC/LEA players have moved
the game in that direction, so their power cannot be challenged without
assured destruction.
It will take more than a mere majority to solve this. It will take
something close to unanimity. If that can be achieved, in the media and in
real public opinion across every group, then they will listen. Unless they
plan to move to the moon and nuke us from orbit, which has probably
seriously crossed the minds of more than one person with the kind of
disconnection from humanity that they exhibit.
Mark Hedges
On 4 Dec 1998, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
>The new Wassenar abomination has to be the end of this, one way or
>another.
>
>Supposedly, the United States is a democracy. Supposedly, elected
>officials are supposed to respond to the desires of the electorate,
>not the desires of the National Security Agency.
>
>It is time that we explained, clearly and distinctly, to the
>legislative branch that this is *not* a joke, that "balancing the
>interests of law enforcement" is not what the electorate wants, that
>the law enforcement officials have no interests of their own and are
>ALSO the employees of the people.
>
>Either we find out that the U.S. Government is government of the
>bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats, or we get our
>way -- but either way, it is finally, in my opinion, the time for us
>to quit pussyfooting around, quit trying to appease people, and to
>just come out and say "cryptography controls are stupid, and we, the
>people, do not want them, and we don't CARE what the NSA wants, they
>work for *us*, not the other way around."
>
>Perry
>
