Re: OT - Kuwait

Making the case for encryption standards that would allow the Feds to
conduct wiretaps on cellphones is not the same thing as conducting
wiretaps without a court order.

Since such taps are possible without decryption on landlines, Clinton was
basically arguing for the same ability for the Feds to "listen in" on
cellphones that they already have with landlines.

One place where I agree with you is that the scope of government intrusion
into the private matters of Americans is much greater than most Americans
realize:

http://www.progressivetrail.org/node/112



On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:25:21 +0000, stananger wrote:

> Scott Vita wrote:
>
>
>> "stananger" <stananger@********.***> wrote in message
>> news:Eewyf.9407$Di.5124@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>> try this one
>>>
>>> http://www.austinlinks.com/Crypto/non-tech.html
>>
>> Looks like another dud.
>>
>>
>> "The Attorney General shall make all arrangements with appropriate
>> entities to hold the keys for the key-escrow microcircuits installed in
>> communications equipment. In each case, the key holder must agree to
>> strict security procedures to prevent unauthorized release of the keys.
>> The keys shall be released only to government agencies that have
>> established their authority to acquire the content of those
>> communications that have been encrypted by devices containing the
>> microcircuits. The Attorney General shall review for legal sufficiency
>> the procedures by which an agency establishes its authority to acquire
>> the content of such communications."
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott Vita
>
>
>
> Every one but you knows the government has been evesdropping on email &
> phone calls for years.
>
> They dont need a warrant, they just do it.
>
> If you dont have anything to hide why worry!!
>
>
>
> Feds Want to Control Encryption
>
> Do you worry that Big Brother (a.k.a. the Federal Government) wants to
> monitor your phone calls, your e-mail, your computer files, your health
> and financial records, and your business -- and even build government
> databases containing personal information about you, your activities,
> your medical treatment, and your finances? You should.
>
> The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, "The right of the people to be
> secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
> unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," was written
> at time when unreasonable searches and seizures were carried out
> principally by armed troops. This language is just as applicable and
> vital today to protect us against unreasonable searches carried out by
> modern mechanisms.
>
> Encryption is the marvelous technology that can enable us to have
> private phone conversations and send e-mail messages that are secure
> from prying eyes -- just like sealing the envelope of a letter.
> Encryption is a code that makes your phone conversations and e-mail
> sound or look like gibberish to everyone except those to whom you give
> the key to decode them.
>
> Encryption can enable American citizens to protect both our Fourth
> Amendment rights and our First Amendment right to speak or write in any
> language, whether English, Spanish, Greek, or code. Surely, American
> freedom should include the right to have private conversations, to send
> private messages, and to keep private files -- and we do have that right
> today.
>
> Encryption is not yet in widespread popular use, but it should be soon.
> Telephone users are becoming increasingly annoyed with the fact that
> nosy people can easily listen in on our wireless (cellular and cordless
> phone) conversations. As more and more people use e-mail for their
> correspondence, they realize that sending e-mail without encryption is
> like mailing a postcard -- everyone can read it along the way to its
> destination.
>
> But the Clinton Administration opposes our right of encryption. Vice
> President Al Gore, Attorney General Janet Reno, and FBI Director Louis
> Freeh, are all demanding the authority to read our encrypted messages.
> They believe that, to be sure you are not breaking the law, the Federal
> Government should have access to all your private files and messages at
> any time and without your knowledge.
>
> That would be tantamount to giving the government the power to steam
> open all the letters we send through the mail. That's only done in
> totalitarian countries. No free nation has ever tried to snoop on the
> content of private messages -- until the Clinton Administration.
>
> When you put messages in code, whether it's an old-fashioned code
> written on paper or a newfangled code concocted on a computer, there
> must be a "key" to enable you and the recipients of your communications
> to read them. The Clinton Administration is demanding access to all
> encryption keys through a system called "key recovery" or "key escrow."
> Under one scheme, all Americans would be required to deposit the keys to
> their software files and communications with a "third party" who would
> rapidly comply with government agency requests without telling us. As an
> alternate, the Clinton Administration is pressuring industry to make it
> impossible for Americans to buy any encryption system that doesn't have
> key recovery built into it.
>
> Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) says that "encryption is to digital
> communications what deadbolt locks are to doors." Giving the FBI access
> to our encryption keys would be like giving our door keys to the local
> police, leaving our doors unlocked, and relying on the police to catch
> burglars after they break and enter.
>
> Everyone will eventually want encryption in the computer age. There are
> all kinds of reasons why we will want to encrypt our own computer files
> and e-mail and telephone calls, and also want the people with whom we do
> business to use strong encryption so that the personal records they have
> on us will not fall into unauthorized hands.
>
> Whether you use a computer or not, enormous amounts of your personal
> information are already collected and stored "on line" on somebody
> else's computer. Doctors and hospitals store and transfer sensitive
> medical records. Your bank and credit card companies hold and transfer
> information about your finances. Your employer, and the stores where you
> shop, collect and transfer information about your income and purchases.
> The telephone company has a complete listing of every phone call you
> make or receive, including the phone numbers, the time, and how long you
> talked. The government requires cell phone companies to track the
> location of your cell phone.
>
> The Department of Health and Human Services wants to build a national
> computerized registry of everyone's health record and at least half the
> states have already built a database of medical records. HHS is also
> building the National Directory of New Hires with data forwarded by the
> states on every new worker. Of course, the Internal Revenue Service and
> the Social Security Administration have computer files on nearly all
> Americans.
>
> The public schools are starting to participate in a national data
> collection system that will collect and transfer private information
> about all students, not only their academic records, but also medical,
> attitudinal, behavioral, and family information that is none of the
> schools' business. The plan is to have these electronic portfolios
> available to the government and to the students' future employers.
>
> FBI Director Louis Freeh doesn't like Americans having private
> conversations. He told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
> Transportation on July 25, 1996 that encryption poses a "threat to
> public safety." He wants to forbid the use of encryption products unless
> they are "socially-responsible," i.e., have "key recovery" built into
> them so he can read them. He speaks ominously about what he calls "the
> looming specter of encryption" that he can't crack. This is the same
> Louis Freeh who in 1996 proposed that one percent of the telephone
> capacity in urban areas be reserved for wiretaps (that's 10,000 phones
> in a city of one million). Even the KGB and the Gestapo didn't reach
> that level of surveillance.
>
> The FBI argues that it needs "key recovery" power to crack down on drug
> lords and terrorists, but the bad guys can buy top-quality encryption
> from dozens of other countries. The danger from these criminals should
> not require Americans to submit to police-state surveillance of our
> daily lives and activities.
>
> The FBI cannot be trusted with the awesome power of key recovery. The
> FBI has already betrayed our trust in so many areas, including turning
> over 900 "raw" personnel files to political operatives at the Clinton
> White House, the multiple outrages at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and the abuse
> of Richard Jewell, the falsely accused Atlanta security guard.
>
> A neutral panel of the National Research Council was set up to make
> policy recommendations about encryption. The panel called on the
> government to abandon its efforts to restrict encryption. The panel
> concluded that increased use of encryption would enhance our national
> security, not diminish it. Thirteen of its 16 members had security
> clearances with access to secret information, and they said there are no
> classified national security reasons that are relevant to the encryption
> debate. The Clinton Administration bases its campaign to control private
> encryption on the alleged need to fight crime through wiretapping, but
> the panel concluded that the ability of the private sector to transfer
> confidential financial and other data over the information highway
> without interception is far more important. Strong encryption for
> individual use is the number-one privacy issue in the information age.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FBI's Wiretaps To Scan E-Mail Spark Concern
>
> By NEIL KING JR. And TED BRIDIS
>
> WASHINGTON -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation is using a superfast
> system called Carnivore to covertly search e-mails for messages from
> criminal suspects.
>
> Essentially a personal computer stuffed with specialized software,
> Carnivore represents a new twist in the federal government's fight to
> sustain its snooping powers in the Internet age. But in employing the
> system, which can scan millions of e-mails a second, the FBI has upset
> privacy advocates and some in the computer industry. Experts say the
> system opens a thicket of unresolved legal issues and privacy concerns.
>
> The FBI developed the Internet wiretapping system at a special agency
> lab at Quantico, Va., and dubbed it Carnivore for its ability to get to
> "the meat" of what would otherwise be an enormous quantity of data. FBI
> technicians unveiled the system to a roomful of astonished industry
> specialists here two weeks ago in order to steer efforts to develop
> standardized ways of complying with federal wiretaps. Federal
> investigators say they have used Carnivore in fewer than 100 criminal
> cases since its launch early last year.
>
> Word of the Carnivore system has disturbed many in the Internet industry
> because, when deployed, it must be hooked directly into Internet service
> providers' computer networks. That would give the government, at least
> theoretically, the ability to eavesdrop on all customers' digital
> communications, from e-mail to online banking and Web surfing.
>
> The system also troubles some Internet service providers, who are loath
> to see outside software plugged into their systems. In many cases, the
> FBI keeps the secret Carnivore computer system in a locked cage on the
> provider's premises, with agents making daily visits to retrieve the
> data captured from the provider's network. But legal challenges to the
> use to Carnivore are few, and judges' rulings remain sealed because of
> the secretive nature of the investigations.
>
> Internet wiretaps are conducted only under state or federal judicial
> order, and occur relatively infrequently. The huge majority of wiretaps
> continue to be the traditional telephone variety, though U.S. officials
> say the use of Internet eavesdropping is growing as everyone from drug
> dealers to potential terrorists begins to conduct business over the Web.
>
> The FBI defends Carnivore as more precise than Internet wiretap methods
> used in the past. The bureau says the system allows investigators to
> tailor an intercept operation so they can pluck only the digital traffic
> of one person from among the stream of millions of other messages. An
> earlier version, aptly code-named Omnivore, could suck in as much as to
> six gigabytes of data every hour, but in a less discriminating fashion.
>
> Still, critics contend that Carnivore is open to abuse. Mark Rasch, a
> former federal computer-crimes prosecutor, said the nature of the
> surveillance by Carnivore raises important privacy questions, since it
> analyzes part of every snippet of data traffic that flows past, if only
> to determine whether to record it for police.
>
> "It's the electronic equivalent of listening to everybody's phone calls
> to see if it's the phone call you should be monitoring," Mr. Rasch said.
> "You develop a tremendous amount of information."
>
> Others say the technology dramatizes how far the nation's laws are
> lagging behind the technological revolution. "This is a clever way to
> use old telephone-era statutes to meet new challenges, but clearly there
> is too much latitude in the current law," said Stewart Baker, a lawyer
> specializing in telecommunications and Internet regulatory matters.
>
> Robert Corn-Revere, of the Hogan & Hartson law firm here, represented an
> unidentified Internet service provider in one of the few legal fights
> against Carnivore. He said his client worried that the FBI would have
> access to all the e-mail traffic on its system, raising dire privacy and
> security concerns. A federal magistrate ruled against the company early
> this year, leaving it no option but to allow the FBI access to its
> system.
>
> "This is an area in desperate need of clarification from Congress," said
> Mr. Corn-Revere.
>
> "Once the software is applied to the ISP, there's no check on the
> system," said Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who sits on a House judiciary
> subcommittee for constitutional affairs. "If there's one word I would
> use to describe this, it would be 'frightening.' "
>
> Marcus Thomas, chief of the FBI's Cyber Technology Section at Quantico,
> said Carnivore represents the bureau's effort to keep abreast of rapid
> changes in Internet communications while still meeting the rigid demands
> of federal wiretapping statutes. "This is just a very specialized
> sniffer," he said.
>
> He also noted that criminal and civil penalties prohibit the bureau from
> placing unauthorized wiretaps, and any information gleaned in those
> types of criminal cases would be thrown out of court. Typical Internet
> wiretaps last around 45 days, after which the FBI removes the equipment.
> Mr. Thomas said the bureau usually has as many as 20 Carnivore systems
> on hand, "just in case."
>
> FBI experts acknowledge that Carnivore's monitoring can be stymied with
> computer data such as e-mail that is scrambled using powerful encryption
> technology. Those messages still can be captured, but law officers
> trying to read the contents are "at the mercy of how well It was
> encrypted," Mr. Thomas said.
>
> Most of the criminal cases where the FBI used Carnivore in the past 18
> months focused on what the bureau calls ' infrastructure protection," or
> the hunt for hackers though it also was used in counterterrorism and
> some drug-trafficking cases.
>
>
>
>
> Liberty vs. Totalitarianism, Clinton-Style
>
> Monitoring by I.D. and Database
>
> Two of the principal mechanisms by which the rulers of 20th century
> police states maintained their control over their people were the file
> and the internal passport. These governments kept a cumulative file
> (called the dangan in Communist China) on every individual's performance
> and attitudes from school years through adult employment. Citizens
> carried an internal passport or "papers" that had to be presented to the
> authorities for permission to travel within the country, to take up
> residence in another city, or to apply for a new job.
>
> These two methods of personal surveillance -- efficient watchdogs that
> prevented any emergence of freedom -- required an army of bureaucrats
> fortified by a Gestapo, a Stasi or a KGB, plus the ability to commandeer
> an unlimited supply of paper and file folders. Technology has now made
> the task of building personal files on every citizen, and tracking our
> actions and movements, just as easy as logging onto the Internet.
>
> Unknown to most Americans, coordinated plans are well underway to give
> the Federal Government the power to input personal information on all
> Americans onto a government database. The computer will record our
> school, business, medical, financial, and personal activities, and track
> our movements as we travel about the United States.
>
> These plans were authorized by the so-called conservative Congress and
> are eagerly implemented and expanded by the Clinton Administration
> liberals. They plan to force all Americans to carry an I.D. card linked
> to a federal database, without which we will not be able to drive a car,
> get a job, board a plane, enter a hospital emergency room or school,
> have a bank account, cash a check, buy a gun, or have access to
> government benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
>
> Putting all that information on a government database means the end of
> privacy as we know it. Daily actions we all take for granted will
> henceforth be recorded, monitored, tracked, and contingent on showing
> The Card.
>
> Legislative authority for these dramatic changes in what we endearingly
> call the American way of life was buried in two bills passed by
> Republicans and signed by Bill Clinton in 1996: the Illegal Immigration
> Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and the Personal Responsibility
> and Work Opportunity Reform Act (known as welfare reform).
>
> The illegal immigration law prohibits the use of state driver's licenses
> after Oct. 1, 2000 unless they contain Social Security numbers as the
> unique numeric identifier "that can be read visually or by electronic
> means." (Section 656(b)) The act requires all driver's licenses to
> conform to regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation,
> which published its proposed regulations on June 17. (Federal Register,
> vol. 63, no. 116, pp. 33219-33225)
>
> The illegal immigration law orders the Attorney General to conduct pilot
> programs in at least 5 states where the state driver's license includes
> a "machine-readable" Social Security number. (Section 403(c)) The law
> also orders the development of a Social Security card that "shall employ
> technologies that provide security features, such as magnetic stripes,
> holograms, and integrated circuits." (Section 657(a)) A "smart card"
> with these technologies can contain a digitized fingerprint, retina
> scan, voice print, DNA print, or other biometric identifier, and will
> leave an electronic trail every time it is used.
>
> The law orders "consultation" with the American Association of Motor
> Vehicle Administrators. AAMVA, a pseudo-private, quasi-government
> organization, has long urged using driver's licenses, with Social
> Security numbers and digital fingerprinting, as a de facto national I.D.
> card that would enable the government to track everyone's movements
> throughout North America.
>
> The welfare reform law requires that, in order to receive federal
> welfare funds, states must collect Social Security numbers from
> applicants for any professional license, occupational license, or
> "commercial driver's license." (Section 317) The Balanced Budget Act of
> 1997, in the guise of making "technical corrections" to welfare reform,
> deleted the word "commercial," thereby applying the requirement to all
> driver's license applicants, and even added "recreational" (hunting and
> fishing) licenses.
>
> Another provision of welfare reform requires employers, since Oct. 1,
> 1997, to transmit the name, address, and Social Security number of every
> new worker to a Directory of New Hires. This is supposed to help track
> deadbeat dads, but the information is collected from all new workers
> (regardless of whether they are deadbeats or even dads) and maintained
> for 24 months.
>
> The "instant background check" established by the 1993 Brady Act takes
> effect nationwide on Dec. 1. Under this system, prospective handgun
> buyers must be screened against a database of convicted criminals. But
> the new national I.D. card will make it easy to keep a database of gun
> buyers, too, which some states reportedly are doing already. Although
> the Brady Act forbids federal agencies from using the instant check
> system to register firearms, the FBI says it plans to keep records of
> prospective handgun buyers for 18 months.
>
> A few states have already quietly legislated acquiescence in the new
> federal requirements, but fingerprinting and smart cards have stirred an
> uproar in others. Most Americans have never been fingerprinted and look
> upon it as something that happens only to criminal suspects.
>
> The New Jersey Legislature recently abandoned efforts to pass Governor
> Christine Whitman's high-tech driver's license called "Access New
> Jersey." It was designed to contain a computer chip with 100 electronic
> keys capable of storing large amounts of personal data. It would leave
> an electronic trail each time the card was used to cash a check, make a
> purchase, pay a toll, check out a book, get insurance authorization to
> see a doctor, or used for identification, all identified by Social
> Security number. These new federal laws effectively overturn the 1974
> Privacy Act, which declared that "It shall be unlawful for any Federal,
> State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right,
> benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's
> refusal to disclose his Social Security account number." On the pretext
> of catching illegal aliens, welfare cheats, deadbeat dads, and
> criminals, these laws will subject law-abiding Americans to the
> police-state apparatus of national I.D. cards linked to coordinated
> government databases.

--
SportsJournals.net - free community blogging for Sports Junkies

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: National Security Backdoor in telnetd - all versions.
    ... >>against the Secret Service for their violations of civil rights. ... encryption techniques to protect critical resources. ... plants have absolutely horrid security resulting from these stupidities. ... Of course I doubt you have an NDA with the government - so ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: OT - Kuwait
    ... > One place where I agree with you is that the scope of government intrusion ... > into the private matters of Americans is much greater than most Americans ... >>> strict security procedures to prevent unauthorized release of the keys. ... >> Feds Want to Control Encryption ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: How to protect an encrypted file system for off-line attack?
    ... filesystem encryption prevents the contents from being known, ... The kind of government you describe ... With the level of danger involved here, I think the security issue is ... attacker can gain root." ...
    (Debian-User)
  • No Quick Fix For Government Data Security
    ... While encryption and other security technology can help, ... government bureaucracy are seen as the main causes of vulnerability. ...
    (comp.dcom.telecom)
  • Americans have a lot of questions that went unanswered tonight.
    ... "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein ... Americans have a lot of questions that went unanswered tonight. ... When will the Republican Party put its responsibility to the people ... When will he take steps to further ensure retirement security for every ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)