Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:28:25 -0400
Subject: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995


On June 27, Sen. Grassley introduced extensive criminal amendments to the
federal racketeering act.  S. 974, the "Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of
1995," would amend U.S. Code sections 18 USC 1961 (criminal RICO statute),
18 USC 1030A (new section on computer crime), 18 USC 2515, 2516
(wiretapping), and 42 USC 2000aa (Privacy Protection Act).

This proposed legislation is Very Bad. It would make all encryption
software posted to computer networks that are accessible to foreigners
illegal *regardless of whether the NSA has classified the software as a
munition!!!*  Here's the language:

 "Sec. 1030A.  Racketeering-related crimes involving computers
   "(a) It shall be unlawful--

. . .

      "(2) to distribute computer software that encodes or encrypts
    electronic or digital communications to computer networks that the
    person distributing knows, or reasonably should know, is accessible to
    foreign nationals and foreign governments, regardless of whether such
    software has been designated nonexportable."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

"If you read one thread this year, read this one"

One way to find the following text is to look up S.974 on Thomas,
http://thomas.loc.gov/, and follow the "references to this bill in the
Congressional Record" link. Here's the URL I used, but I suspect this query
won't work from scratch: 
http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/2?r104:./temp/~r10443Io:e50455:+@1(S.+974)++

Deep down, I didn't truly believe it would come to this. Now I'm a believer.
I've inserted a few comments. If they seem alarmist, perhaps it's because
I'm alarmed !  I actually find Grassley's comments more frightening than the
text of the bill itself....

I get the impression that this amendment might also jeopardize anonymous
digital cash; Sec. 1030 (a) (3) makes it unlawful to "use a computer or
computer network to transmit a communication intended to conceal or hide the
origin of money or other assets, tangible or intangible, that were derived
from racketeering activity."  All these limitations on cryptography and
privacy seem to shift the effective burden of proof from the prosecution to
the defense -- Jennifer Q. Public can't keep anything out of the prosecution's
eyes, in case she might be laundering Mafia dough. 

If they're pursuing a similar argument with this amendment, anonymous
remailing may be in trouble too. 

 --- Begin Included Text ---

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (Senate - June
27, 1995) 
Sen. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce the
Anti-electronic Racketeering Act of 1995. This bill makes important changes
to RICO and criminalizes deliberately using computer technology to engage in
criminal activity. I believe this bill is a reasonable, measured and strong
response to a growing problem. According to the computer emergency and
response team at Carnegie-Mellon University, during 1994, about 40,000
computer users were attacked. Virus hacker, the FBI's national computer
crime squad has investigated over 200 cases since 1991. So, computer crime is
clearly on the rise.

Mr. President, I suppose that some of this is just natural. Whenever man
develops a new technology, that technology will be abused by some. And that
is why I have introduced this bill. 

<< to make sure nobody can use it, lest they "abuse" it...

I believe we need to seriously reconsider
the Federal Criminal Code with an eye toward modernizing existing statutes
and creating new ones. In other words, Mr. President, Elliot Ness needs to
meet the Internet.

Mr. President, I sit on the Board of the Office of Technology Assessment.
That Office has clearly indicated that organized crime has entered cyberspace
in a big way. International drug cartels use computers to launder drug money
and terrorists like the Oklahoma City bombers use computers to conspire to
commit crimes.

<< I haven't heard much to suggest that McVeigh was using a
<< computer for anything, but we all saw this line coming, right ?
<< 3 of Tim's 4 Horsemen of the Infocalypse figure prominently here; I guess
<< Exon & Gorton have ridden off after the fourth already....

Computer fraud accounts for the loss of millions of dollars per year. And
often times, there is little that can be done about this because the computer
used to commit the crimes is located overseas. So, under my bill, overseas
computer users who employ their computers to commit fraud in the United
States would be fully subject to the Federal criminal laws. 

<< So the U.S. Government now considers, among other things, the entire
<< Internet to fall under its jurisdiction. I think he's referring to 
<< Sec. 1030 A (g). The provisions of that subsection apply to the entire
<< enclosing section, which under this amendment would include the
<< prohibition on non-GAK crypto on the net.

Also under my
bill, Mr. President, the wire fraud statute which has been successfully used by
prosecutors for many users, will be amended to make fraudulent schemes
which use computers a crime.

It is not enough to simply modernize the Criminal Code. We also

have to reconsider many of the difficult procedural burdens that prosecutors
must overcome. For instance, in the typical case, prosecutors must identify a
location in order to get a wiretapping order. But in cyberspace, it is often
impossible to determine the location. And so my bill corrects that so that if
prosecutors cannot, with the exercise of effort, give the court a location, then
those prosecutors can still get a wiretapping order. 

<< I'm not sure where in the bill this is delineated. Would the police be
<< given a carte blanche to root around wherever the mood strikes them ?

And for law
enforcers--both State and Federal--who have seized a computer which
contains both contraband or evidence and purely private material, I have
created a good-faith standard so that law enforcers are not shackled by
undue restrictions but will also be punished for bad faith.

<< All together now: "TRUST US"

Mr. President, this brave new world of electronic communications and global
computer networks holds much promise. But like almost anything, there is the
potential for abuse and harm. That is why I urge my colleagues to support
this bill and that is why I urge industry to support this bill.

On a final note, I would say that we should not be too scared of
technology. 

<< Did a staffer write this ?

After all, we are still just people and right is still right and
wrong is still wrong. Some things change and some things do not. 

<< Did George Bush write this ?

All that
my bill does is say you can't use computers to steal, to threaten others or
conceal criminal conduct.

<< Ah, if that's all it does, why not scrap the whole thing and not waste
<< the Senate's valuable time ?  After all, stealing, threatening, and
<< concealing criminal conduct are already outlawed....

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed
in the Record.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
[...]

 --- End Included Text ---

<< -Lewis "Futplex" McCarthy <lmccarth@cs.umass.edu>
<< I am not a lawyer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMAT8VGf7YYibNzjpAQEuWwQAx4dzd38Cj/2nwR/gDd89TmztX6KlG/cM
Aq7veVSH6aEw/8OcHvaiROhIcDww5xJwGFcQXFil1v5sJvg7667e93ybhIiv0Hw1
0/XRvwh0K1pG3GkozISJLPSeuz8EHlZukpV8fv3iZxuSdbIMGJYQT0WmvB736RuW
yF9b047mX4E=
=G4jp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, L. McCarthy wrote:

> STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (Senate - June
> 27, 1995) 
> Sen. GRASSLEY
> 
> Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce the
> Anti-electronic Racketeering Act of 1995. This bill makes important changes
> to RICO and criminalizes deliberately using computer technology to engage in
> criminal activity. I believe this bill is a reasonable, measured and strong
> response to a growing problem. According to the computer emergency and
> response team at Carnegie-Mellon University, during 1994, about 40,000
> computer users were attacked. Virus hacker, the FBI's national computer
> crime squad has investigated over 200 cases since 1991. So, computer crime is
> clearly on the rise.

Eh, what do "virus hackers" have to do with encryption, why is it these 
morons justify the destruction of encryption by mentioning hackers and 
viruses?

Additionally, does this mean that someone outside of the USA is in danger 
of being grabbed by RICO armed thugs from Uncle Sam's cadre for writing 
crypto software and publishing it in the open?  After all, once it winds 
up on some USA site, how do we know that someone outside the USA got his 
copy of SuperDuperNSASpookFree from a non-US site?  Just to be sure, 
we'll bust both the site operator and nab the guy who wrote it next time 
he drops in, or hell, we'll have him extradited.


> Mr. President, I suppose that some of this is just natural. Whenever man
> develops a new technology, that technology will be abused by some. And that
> is why I have introduced this bill. 

Yes, whenever man develops a privacy increasing technoloy, the spooks 
will see to it, that they abuse everyone's rights to that privacy, and 
then some!

> I believe we need to seriously reconsider
> the Federal Criminal Code with an eye toward modernizing existing statutes
> and creating new ones. In other words, Mr. President, Elliot Ness needs to
> meet the Internet.

Where is Elliot Ness?  I don't see any mafia.org on the net.  Anyone here 
see any such site?

> Mr. President, I sit on the Board of the Office of Technology Assessment.
> That Office has clearly indicated that organized crime has entered cyberspace
> in a big way. International drug cartels use computers to launder drug money
> and terrorists like the Oklahoma City bombers use computers to conspire to
> commit crimes.
Was it not proven that McVeigh and Co. >DID NOT< use a computer?  THe AOL 
account was a hoax, no?  Where are the hoardes of anti-USA terrorists, 
and drug pushers on the net?  Certainly, I see no drugs.com site... web, 
ftp, email, usenet or otherwise.

> << I haven't heard much to suggest that McVeigh was using a
> << computer for anything, but we all saw this line coming, right ?
> << 3 of Tim's 4 Horsemen of the Infocalypse figure prominently here; I guess
> << Exon & Gorton have ridden off after the fourth already....

Ditto above.

> Computer fraud accounts for the loss of millions of dollars per year. And
> often times, there is little that can be done about this because the computer
> used to commit the crimes is located overseas. So, under my bill, overseas
> computer users who employ their computers to commit fraud in the United
> States would be fully subject to the Federal criminal laws. 

Yeah, so, why blame citizen units in the USA for actions outsiders 
committed.?  Why limit the spread and use of cryptographically strong 
tools from being developed in the USA?

If Joe Badguysky breaks into your house and steals your copy of PGP, then 
exports it to his fatherland, should I arrest you for that?  What if he 
breaks into your store and steals a copy off the shelf and exports it?  

Why punish the victim?

> It is not enough to simply modernize the Criminal Code. We also
> have to reconsider many of the difficult procedural burdens that prosecutors
> must overcome. For instance, in the typical case, prosecutors must identify a
> location in order to get a wiretapping order. But in cyberspace, it is often
> impossible to determine the location. And so my bill corrects that so that if
> prosecutors cannot, with the exercise of effort, give the court a location, then
> those prosecutors can still get a wiretapping order. 

Oh, the poor poor LEA's.  If they can't prove you're guilty (because you 
aren't, and there is no proof because you aren't,) let them throw you in 
jail anyway.

> << All together now: "TRUST US"
> 
> Mr. President, this brave new world of electronic communications and global
> computer networks holds much promise. But like almost anything, there is the
> potential for abuse and harm. That is why I urge my colleagues to support
> this bill and that is why I urge industry to support this bill.

And this type of bill is where the potential for abuse and harm arises.  
The harm of course is to those who will be thrown in jail for wanting 
privacy.

> On a final note, I would say that we should not be too scared of
> technology. 

Gee, who is scared?  Don't be scared, be Big Brother. :-(

> After all, we are still just people and right is still right and
> wrong is still wrong. Some things change and some things do not. 

Circular reasonings and politician's spewing?  I can see th masses 
applauding this... all wearing PJ's and bearing shaved heads watching Big 
Brother on the screen infront of them...

> All that
> my bill does is say you can't use computers to steal, to threaten others or
> conceal criminal conduct.
> 
> << Ah, if that's all it does, why not scrap the whole thing and not waste
> << the Senate's valuable time ?  After all, stealing, threatening, and
> << concealing criminal conduct are already outlawed....

So, what countries are left free of encryption regulations? (English 
speaking preffered, with affordable net access.)  Time to see about 
getting a new passport...


=================================================================93=======
 + ^ + |  Ray Arachelian | Amerika: The land of the Freeh. | \-_    _-/  |
  \|/  |sunder@escape.com| Where day by day, yet another   |  \  --  /   |
<--+-->|                 | Constitutional right vanishes.  |6 _\-  -/_  6|
  /|\  |    Just Say     |                                 |----\  /---- | 
 + v + | "No" to the NSA!| Jail the censor, not the author!|     \/      |
=======/---------------------------------------------------------VI------/
      /  I watched and weeped as the Exon bill passed, knowing that yet /
     / another freedom vanished before my eyes.  How soon before we see/
    /a full scale dictatorship in the name of decency? While the rest /
   /of_the_world_fights_FOR_freedom,_our_gov'ment_fights_our_freedom_/

On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Ray Arachelian wrote:

> So, what countries are left free of encryption regulations? (English 
> speaking preffered, with affordable net access.)  Time to see about 
> getting a new passport...

How about "not respecting international copyright law, and not having 
extradition treaties with the US" ... set up a data haven, we now know 
why we need it soon... charge by the Kbyte, automate the billing, and relax.

Anybody seriously interested? 
Jon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lasser                <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>            (410) 494-3253 
          Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
  You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.

On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Jon Lasser wrote:

> How about "not respecting international copyright law, and not having 
> extradition treaties with the US" ... set up a data haven, we now know 
> why we need it soon... charge by the Kbyte, automate the billing, and relax.

Seriously bad for my financial health.  I write code for a living (though 
I'm a Netware LAN Admin in this incarnation of a job.)  Going somewhere 
where I can't make money writing code because 10 billion folks will have 
it after one pays is my idea of jumping out of the microwave oven into 
the boiling lobster stew.  :-)

If such systems would be maintenance free, it would be cool going around 
place to place installing data heaven servers all over the place.

Hell a 1Gb hard drive is only $350 or so.  A cheap XT, or lap top hooked 
upto such a drive, say 4Mb of RAM and a 28.8Kbps modem would be good enough.
Say some junky assed machine no more than $500 a pop...

I would guess we could get a small enough package to hide in say... under 
the subway tunnels, or in the sewer system, and hook'em up to existing 
power lines....  Now if we could hook'em up to a phone line easily, it 
would be a great thing to have.  But how do you hook into the phone line 
without the local MaBell getting interested?

Enough of these things hooked up all over the place would be cool.  
Everyone can ftp to the server, write or read, but nobody can delete.  
When the drive is full, the server goes read only.   Instant (free) data 
heaven.  Get a few million of these up, and hey, you've got instant, 
unstopable info servers.  Very hard for any government to catch all of these.

On the other end of el-spectrum d'data heaven is the pay service.  You 
upload, you pay $5 a meg, I burn your megs on the CD.  You want the data 
back, you pay me $50 a meg and I make it available again.  :-) You'll be 
rolling in cash in no time.  I don't need to know who you are or what 
files you sent me.  Just tell me the date and time stamp of the file my 
server got your file and after I get the $50, you get to download the file.

Pay me in cash, e-cash, or no-name money-orders. :-)

Excellent business, no?  Hell, you could probably set something like this 
up in the USA right now...  Even more easily with a 1-900-$5/minute number.
As long as what you send me is something I can't see, I don't have any 
risk and neither do you.  Or you can snail mail me a 1.44Mb floppy with a 
special file name and I'll take the post_mark date and the file name and 
your $5 and burn it on the CD.

Expensive enough to keep pirates away, cheap enough to make corporate 
data worth backing up remotely.

Cost: ~$10K or so...

 Good pentium server running Linux $2K, 28.8Kbps modems ~$220
 each, need no more than 2Gb of hard drive space... (650 of which you set 
aside for the CD burning.)
 CD Burner ~$1700.
 blank CD's for $8 a piece in volume, etc.

 Good sized data-grade fire proof safe $????

You can hire high school kids to burn the CD's in or your relatives, or 
do it yourself.  Very nice setup.

=================================================================93=======
 + ^ + |  Ray Arachelian | Amerika: The land of the Freeh. | \-_    _-/  |
  \|/  |sunder@escape.com| Where day by day, yet another   |  \  --  /   |
<--+-->|                 | Constitutional right vanishes.  |6 _\-  -/_  6|
  /|\  |    Just Say     |                                 |----\  /---- | 
 + v + | "No" to the NSA!| Jail the censor, not the author!|     \/      |
=======/---------------------------------------------------------VI------/
      /  I watched and weeped as the Exon bill passed, knowing that yet /
     / another freedom vanished before my eyes.  How soon before we see/
    /a full scale dictatorship in the name of decency? While the rest /
   /of_the_world_fights_FOR_freedom,_our_gov'ment_fights_our_freedom_/

> So, what countries are left free of encryption regulations? (English 
> speaking preffered, with affordable net access.)  Time to see about 
> getting a new passport...

Finland, as far as I know, does not have any restrictions on
encryption, and has a friendly population.  Finnish is indecipherable
at first, but almost everybody can speak English (at least the younger
population).  There is a big shortage of competent computer and
electronics engineers.  Nokia Telecommunications (a major mobile phone
manufacturer) for example would need much more competent people than
they can get - not to mention the smaller companies.

Finland has excellent network connections - typical ftp rates from the
US are tens of kilobytes per second (except at peak hours).  There is
a lot of competition among the internet service provides.  About
$20/months gets you 28.8k dialup ppp (1-2 hours/day at that rate, I
think).  Another provider charges about 5 cents per minute.  A leased
64k line is around $100/month.

The climate is nice during the summer (15-25 Celsius typical), and
cold during the winter.

Taxes are outrageous though, so you really had better check that
first.  But, the taxes include things like medical insurance, pension
insurance, etc., and are thus not directly comparable.

And of course, we are now a member of the European Union, which
worries me a little on this front...

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist the temptation :-)

   Tatu

What time is the Five minute hate?


Amerika: land of the Freeh, home of the slave

On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Ray Arachelian wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, L. McCarthy wrote:
> 
> > Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce the
> > Anti-electronic Racketeering Act of 1995. This bill makes important changes
> > to RICO and criminalizes deliberately using computer technology to engage in
> > criminal activity. I believe this bill is a reasonable, measured and strong
> > response to a growing problem. According to the computer emergency and
> > response team at Carnegie-Mellon University, during 1994, about 40,000
> > computer users were attacked. Virus hacker, the FBI's national computer
> > crime squad has investigated over 200 cases since 1991. So, computer crime is
> > clearly on the rise.
> 
> Eh, what do "virus hackers" have to do with encryption, why is it these 
> morons justify the destruction of encryption by mentioning hackers and 
> viruses?

The use of terms such as "virus" and "hacker" in a context such
as this has little or nothing to do with what the terms actually
mean.  It's palpably obvious that they are being bandied about
here solely for the knee-jerk emotional reactions they evoke.
Even those more computer/net clue-impaired than Grassley (assuming
that such is possible) know from watching TV and the movies that
a virus is a Bad Thing (tm) and that hackers are evil!
Pseudo-digital demagoguery.
 
> Additionally, does this mean that someone outside of the USA is in danger 
> of being grabbed by RICO armed thugs from Uncle Sam's cadre for writing 
> crypto software and publishing it in the open?  After all, once it winds 
> up on some USA site, how do we know that someone outside the USA got his 
> copy of SuperDuperNSASpookFree from a non-US site?  Just to be sure, 
> we'll bust both the site operator and nab the guy who wrote it next time 
> he drops in, or hell, we'll have him extradited.  

Or simply kidnap him and escort him back to the U.S.
 
<snip>

> > I believe we need to seriously reconsider
> > the Federal Criminal Code with an eye toward modernizing existing statutes
> > and creating new ones. In other words, Mr. President, Elliot Ness needs to
> > meet the Internet.
> 
> Where is Elliot Ness?  I don't see any mafia.org on the net.  Anyone here 
> see any such site?

It might be even more beneficial if Senator Grassley and the other
members of our august deliberative bodies would meet the internet.
My gut reaction to the recent tide of legislation is that they are
seeking to stangle what they fear and that they fear what they do
not understand.  (Too melodramatic?)
 
> > Mr. President, I sit on the Board of the Office of Technology Assessment.
> > That Office has clearly indicated that organized crime has entered cyberspace
> > in a big way. International drug cartels use computers to launder drug money
> > and terrorists like the Oklahoma City bombers use computers to conspire to
> > commit crimes.
>
> Was it not proven that McVeigh and Co. >DID NOT< use a computer?  THe AOL 
> account was a hoax, no?  Where are the hoardes of anti-USA terrorists, 
> and drug pushers on the net? 

You don't recognize them because they are masquerading 
as "virus hackers".

Again, the main reason for playing the "terrorist" card is
for the emotional hot-buttons they can push by so doing.
Since Grassley didn't use it, look for someone to introduce
something this session titled, "The Avenge Those Poor,
Innocent, Bloody Dead Children Act of 1995".

AR

%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%=%#%
"Government is not reason... it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous
servant and a fearful master."                      - George Washington
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Allen Robinson...................................sebaygo@intellinet.com
PGP public key AD022AA9   fingerprint 5A3BC05B2EC67724 F5664A20AEEAB07A

On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Brad Dolan wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:28:25 -0400
> Subject: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995
> 
> 
> On June 27, Sen. Grassley introduced extensive criminal amendments to the
> federal racketeering act.  S. 974, the "Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of
> 1995," would amend U.S. Code sections 18 USC 1961 (criminal RICO statute),
> 18 USC 1030A (new section on computer crime), 18 USC 2515, 2516
> (wiretapping), and 42 USC 2000aa (Privacy Protection Act).
> 
> This proposed legislation is Very Bad. It would make all encryption
> software posted to computer networks that are accessible to foreigners
> illegal *regardless of whether the NSA has classified the software as a
> munition!!!*  Here's the language:
> 
>  "Sec. 1030A.  Racketeering-related crimes involving computers
>    "(a) It shall be unlawful--
> 
> . . .
> 
>       "(2) to distribute computer software that encodes or encrypts
>     electronic or digital communications to computer networks that the
>     person distributing knows, or reasonably should know, is accessible to
>     foreign nationals and foreign governments, regardless of whether such
>     software has been designated nonexportable."

en-code (inkoud) pres. part. en-cod-ing past and past part. en-cod-ed to put
into code

code (koud) 1. n. a collection of statutes, rules, etc. methodically arranged
|| an accepted way of signals, Morse code || a system in which arbitrary
values are given to letters, words, numbers or symbols to ensure secrecy or
brevity (cf. CIPHER) 2. v.t. pres. part. cod-ing past and past part. cod-ed
to put (a message) into code || (genetics) to particularize the genetic code
used in synthesizing [F.]

(Source: New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language,
1993)

Assuming that this isn't contradicted by other parts of the legislation,
doesn't this outlaw distribution "to computer networks" software for
everything from compression to data structures to TCP/IP to ROT13 to PGP? 

The bad part is that they might "compromise" and, by the time its over 
with, it still outlaws non-GAK crypto. At least when its overly broad it 
has a better chance of getting laughed out of court.

The United States Government *is* this stupid. If you are unfortunate 
enough to live within U.S. borders, welcome to hell. *heavy sigh*

--
PGP public key available via finger.	      
GCS/AT d H- s-: g+ p2+ au+ !a w++ v++(--)>! C++++ UL+++>++++ P++ 
L++>+++ 3- E- N+++ K W--(---) M- V-- po--- Y++ t 5+++ j R+++ G 
tv+ b+>++ D B-- e- u*(**) h* f(+) r(-)@ n--->+++ x?

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:28:25 -0400
   Subject: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995

   On June 27, Sen. Grassley introduced extensive criminal amendments to the
   federal racketeering act.  S. 974, the "Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of
   1995," would amend U.S. Code sections 18 USC 1961 (criminal RICO statute),
   18 USC 1030A (new section on computer crime), 18 USC 2515, 2516
   (wiretapping), and 42 USC 2000aa (Privacy Protection Act).

   This proposed legislation is Very Bad. It would make all encryption
   software posted to computer networks that are accessible to foreigners
   illegal *regardless of whether the NSA has classified the software as a
   munition!!!*  Here's the language:

    "Sec. 1030A.  Racketeering-related crimes involving computers
      "(a) It shall be unlawful--

   . . .

	 "(2) to distribute computer software that encodes or encrypts
       electronic or digital communications to computer networks that the
       person distributing knows, or reasonably should know, is accessible to
       foreign nationals and foreign governments, regardless of whether such
       software has been designated nonexportable."

It's much worse than this.  Look at the definition of "predicate act":

            `(b) For purposes of this section, each act of distributing
          software is considered a separate predicate act. Each instance in
          which nonexportable software is accessed by a foreign government, 
          an agent of a foreign government, a foreign national, or an agent 
          of a foreign national, shall be considered as a separate predicate
          act.

Now, since the bill also makes 1030A violations "racketeering
activities", all you need are two predicate acts and RICO comes into
play.  

Finally, we begin to see the attack on all forms of un-escrowed
encryption.  The bill provides an affirmable defense of
giving the keys to the government ahead of time!

            `(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
          section that the software at issue used a universal decoding device
          or program that was provided to the Department of Justice prior to
          the distribution.'.

There are also some nice surprises related to wiretapping evidence
(would allow the gov't. to use the fruits of an illegal wiretap
conducted by a third party if the government didn't know about the
wiretap) and the Privacy Protection Act.

Get a copy of this bill from:

		ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c104/s974.is.FTP

and read it.  

					--bal

bal writes:
> It's much worse than this.  Look at the definition of "predicate act":
> 
>             `(b) For purposes of this section, each act of distributing
>           software is considered a separate predicate act. Each instance in
>           which nonexportable software is accessed by a foreign government, 
>           an agent of a foreign government, a foreign national, or an agent 
>           of a foreign national, shall be considered as a separate predicate
>           act.
> 
> Now, since the bill also makes 1030A violations "racketeering
> activities", all you need are two predicate acts and RICO comes into
> play.  

In the subsection that explicitly mentions crypto, it says that it's
unlawful to put (non-GAK) crypto on an open net, "regardless of whether such
software has been designated non-exportable". If the phrase "nonexportable"
means the same thing in the context of this subsection, then provision (b)
would only seem to apply RICO to stuff that already falls under ITAR.

For whatever it covers, this provision conveniently makes you liable for the
actions of others. I could see quid pro quo between governments coming into
play here. They can get practically anyone connected with a foreign country 
to click a button on a Web browser, download PGP half a dozen times, and then
hit you with 7 counts of racketeering. Hey, they could run a net searcher
daemon that automatically snags a heap of copies of anything it finds that
looks like a non-GAK crypto app.  

[...]
> Get a copy of this bill from:
> 
> 		ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c104/s974.is.FTP
> 
> and read it.  
> 
> 					--bal

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>

From: lmccarth@cs.umass.edu (L. McCarthy)
   Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 08:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
   Reply-To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)

   bal writes:
   > It's much worse than this.  Look at the definition of "predicate act":
   > 
   >             `(b) For purposes of this section, each act of distributing
   >           software is considered a separate predicate act. Each instance in
   >           which nonexportable software is accessed by a foreign government, 
   >           an agent of a foreign government, a foreign national, or an agent 
   >           of a foreign national, shall be considered as a separate predicate
   >           act.
   > 
   > Now, since the bill also makes 1030A violations "racketeering
   > activities", all you need are two predicate acts and RICO comes into
   > play.  

   In the subsection that explicitly mentions crypto, it says that it's
   unlawful to put (non-GAK) crypto on an open net, "regardless of whether such
   software has been designated non-exportable". If the phrase "nonexportable"
   means the same thing in the context of this subsection, then provision (b)
   would only seem to apply RICO to stuff that already falls under ITAR.

What worries me is the first sentence: "each act of distributing
software is considered a predicate act."  It's not clear to me whether
this applies to (a)(1) unlicensed software or (a)(2) encryption programs
(or perhaps both).  Notice that (a)(1) says "transfer" not "distribute".
Perhaps the act of putting Alleged-RC4 on a FTP site is one act and
mailing a copy to Cypherpunks is another act.  That might be two
distributions and thus two predicate acts.

					--bal

"Brian A. LaMacchia" writes:
> What worries me is the first sentence: "each act of distributing
> software is considered a predicate act."

This breakup into seperate counts business is a common means of
striking terror into people. Its what gets done in the securities
industry, where if you mail a letter with an error in it to fifty
people it becomes fifty seperate counts of fraud and you can go to
jail for several hundred years even with parole. I'm not making this
up.

This law would also criminalize selling crypto software -- even
emasculated crypto software -- at Egghead, by the way. Remember, even
*if the crypto software is exportable* its a crime. It also would
criminalize the distribution of ROT-13. I'm not making either of these
things up.

I'll invoke Godwin's rule right now. The person who thought this up is
a Nazi. Its obviously not the Senator, who must be a dupe for some
national security types -- the Senator probably wouldn't know a crypto
program if it hit him on the head with a sledgehammer.  Its also
obvious that they don't think the whole thing will pass -- this is a
way of getting a "compromise" that merely outlaws all useful
encryption. "Compromise" in Washington-speak means "take down your
pants and prepare to be buggered."

Perry

Perry writes:
> This law would also criminalize selling crypto software -- even
> emasculated crypto software -- at Egghead, by the way. Remember, even
> *if the crypto software is exportable* its a crime. It also would
> criminalize the distribution of ROT-13. I'm not making either of these
> things up.

Draconian as it is, you seem to be overlooking some of the (ever so faintly)
mitigating clauses of this Grass-t-ley bill. Pre-arranged GAK is an admissible
excuse for dodging the crypto ban, so ROT-13 could still be distributed.

Why do you think Egghead couldn't sell crypto any more ?  It's not a computer
network by any definition I've heard so far.... 

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
GAK: it's not just a bad idea, it may soon be the law !

In mlist.cypherpunks you write:

>GAK: it's not just a bad idea, it may soon be the law !
Help!   What does GAK stand for?  I've seen it a billion times,
but I missed the original explanation.

It sounds like some sort of key/crypto registration.

(me)

> silly@ugcs.caltech.edu ((me)) writes:
> Help!   What does GAK stand for?  I've seen it a billion times,

Government Access to Keys; also seen as GACK (Crypto Keys).  This is more
descriptive and accurate than calling it Key Escrow, since escrow is for
the benefit of the parties involved in a transaction.  I think it's Carl
Ellison's invention, and most apt it is.

	Jim Gillogly
	22 Afterlithe S.R. 1995, 12:16

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sat, 15 Jul 1995, Jim Gillogly wrote:

> Government Access to Keys; also seen as GACK (Crypto Keys).  This is more
> descriptive and accurate than calling it Key Escrow, since escrow is for
> the benefit of the parties involved in a transaction.  

I favor the term, "Mandatory Key Registration."  It is even more 
accurate, and parallels gun registration.  This should strike a
sympathetic chord with our pro-2nd Amendment friends.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote:

> What worries me is the first sentence: "each act of distributing
> software is considered a predicate act."  It's not clear to me whether
> this applies to (a)(1) unlicensed software or (a)(2) encryption programs
> (or perhaps both).  Notice that (a)(1) says "transfer" not "distribute".
> Perhaps the act of putting Alleged-RC4 on a FTP site is one act and
> mailing a copy to Cypherpunks is another act.  That might be two
> distributions and thus two predicate acts.

Of course, when you mail it to the cypherpunks list, the program goes to 
500+ people, sot hat's 500+ acts.  And who knows how many people connect 
to the FTP site, but everybody on the internet COULD connect, so that's 
40,000,000 acts.  Welcome to a 6x6 cell with a roommate named Bubba that 
wants to make you his wife.

____        Robert A. Hayden      <=> Cthulhu Matata
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-         <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /  Finger for Geek Code Info <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
   \/   Finger for PGP Public Key <=> http://att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden