Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours

At 8:34 AM 5/3/96, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Thu, 2 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

>> I'd say it's 99.95% likely that the PGP key was generated by a staffer--the
>> resident e-mail geek--and that only staffers know how to use PGP. (In fact,
>> probably only the one staffer who generated the key and knows the
>> passphrase....)
>
>While I believe this correct, it's worth noting that Leahy is fairly
>"into" the technology.  He finds it entertaining and "fun."  All of this
>mostly thanks to his one time counsel John Podesta.  Thanks Mr. Podesta!
>
>He's one of the more interested congress critters.
>
>> So, what is accomplished except "feel good" thoughts?
>
>Admittedly, not much.  I'm at least pleased he has a decently on the ball
>staff however who can tell him what the issues are.


"Decently on the ball"? I hope you are being ironic.

Leahy is no friend of ours. Recall that he chaired the hearings on the
FBI's "Digital Telephony" massive wiretap proposal, and co-sponsored the
legislation (with former FBI agent Don Edwards).

This "sleeping giant" of legislation is still out there, and has not been
consigned to the junk heap. It becomes operative--that is, the $10,000 per
day penalties for noncompliance with the law mandating telecom systems be
DT-compliant--in October 1997. (There is ongoing discussion of whether the
$500 million to be paid to the phone companies is going to be allocated,
and whether those companies (such as "Tim's Cheap Internet Phone Company")
which fail to get some of this lucre as it is handed out are then
exempt....the consensus seems to be that some of the $500 million will be
allocated as a sop to the phone companies, but that large numbers of
smaller companies will still be expected to be compliant when a wiretap
order is presented to them. This even if they never got a dime.

The implications for the Internet and for increasingly popular "Internet
phone" systems are interesting. As I understand the DT language, such
systems would have to be made compliant with wiretap requests, or face the
$10K/day penalties. This could force many ISPs, in the U.S. of course, to
take steps to immediately restrict certain programs, or even
[speculatively] force them to become compliant by some form of key escrow,
where they would keep a copy of a key for presentation to law enforcement.
[More speculation by me: the combination of the Wiretap Act, the
Anti-Terrorism Act, and the still-ongoing work on key escrow (TIS is still
pushing their system, Lotus hasn't backed down, Denning still says it's
needed, etc.) could mean that ISPs move to restrict use of crypto in
various ways, possibly mandating escrowed encryption.

Several of us (Black Unicorn, Duncan Frissell, me, etc.) may point out the
practical difficulties involved in such enforcement, and the longterm dim
prospects for success. But the fact is that ISPs are a kind of "choke
point" for halting certain things. I have a feeling I know what my ISP will
say if he gets a court order and a $10,000 per day penalty faces him. Those
who access the Net directly, through their own companies and/or by having
boxes hanging directly on the Net, will be less vulnerable to this kind of
pressure. But the Netcoms, PSI, Earthlinks, AOLs, and such will likely run
into  trouble the first time a court order is presented to make certain
Internet phone conversations tappable....

(I have long argued for this view that certain "choke points" will be
identified. These are the points of leverage--often companies--which law
enforcement can lean on. Whit Diffie made similar points a few years ago,
that drug laws were "enforced" inside companies (who previously didn't care
whether employees smoked dope on their time off, so long as they did the
job), with urine tests, threats of civil forfeiture of company assets if
even small amounts of drugs were found in the possession of employees, etc.
The "War on Drugs" effectively pressed companies into service as soldiers.)

Sure, a few services will decide to fight such penalties in court and seek
to have Digital Telephony thrown out in court. Deep pockets will be
required. Maybe they'll prevail. Maybe the Burns Bill will collide with
Digital Telephony. Unclear at this time.

But no Congressman who co-sponsors such legislation as the "National
Wiretap Initiative," with its "1% of the engineering capacity" requirements
and other such Big Brother Surveillance State clauses, is a friend of ours.

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Fri, 3 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 8:34 AM 5/3/96, Black Unicorn wrote:

> >While I believe this correct, it's worth noting that Leahy is fairly
> >"into" the technology.  He finds it entertaining and "fun."  All of this
> >mostly thanks to his one time counsel John Podesta.  Thanks Mr. Podesta!
> >
> >He's one of the more interested congress critters.
> >
> >> So, what is accomplished except "feel good" thoughts?
> >
> >Admittedly, not much.  I'm at least pleased he has a decently on the ball
> >staff however who can tell him what the issues are.
> 
> "Decently on the ball"? I hope you are being ironic.

Not at all.  (Did you mean sarcastic?)  His staff are some of the most
astute people on the hill technologically.  That their view might tend to
the statist side disturbs me, but I wasn't talking about their politics.
On the hill a competent and fairly reasonable enemy is much less a problem
than an incompetent publicity seeker.

> Leahy is no friend of ours. Recall that he chaired the hearings on the
> FBI's "Digital Telephony" massive wiretap proposal, and co-sponsored the
> legislation (with former FBI agent Don Edwards).

I remember, I was sitting at the hearings.

One should bear in mind that it was Specter who pushed for hearings
originally, and Specter who was giving with one hand and taking with the
other all through the process.  I won't say I'm happy with Leahy for the
legislation, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a clue.  In my
view the legislation would have been much worse and Clipper more imposing
had Leahy not been involved.

Mind you, I never said Leahy was a giant in the movement for crypto and
privacy interests, just that I was glad someone had a clue.

> This "sleeping giant" of legislation is still out there, and has not been
> consigned to the junk heap. It becomes operative--that is, the $10,000 per
> day penalties for noncompliance with the law mandating telecom systems be
> DT-compliant--in October 1997.

[...]

> Several of us (Black Unicorn, Duncan Frissell, me, etc.) may point out the
> practical difficulties involved in such enforcement, and the longterm dim
> prospects for success. But the fact is that ISPs are a kind of "choke
> point" for halting certain things. I have a feeling I know what my ISP will
> say if he gets a court order and a $10,000 per day penalty faces him. Those
> who access the Net directly, through their own companies and/or by having
> boxes hanging directly on the Net, will be less vulnerable to this kind of
> pressure. But the Netcoms, PSI, Earthlinks, AOLs, and such will likely run
> into  trouble the first time a court order is presented to make certain
> Internet phone conversations tappable....

Agreed.

> (I have long argued for this view that certain "choke points" will be
> identified).

[...]

> Sure, a few services will decide to fight such penalties in court and seek
> to have Digital Telephony thrown out in court. Deep pockets will be
> required. Maybe they'll prevail. Maybe the Burns Bill will collide with
> Digital Telephony. Unclear at this time.
> 
> But no Congressman who co-sponsors such legislation as the "National
> Wiretap Initiative," with its "1% of the engineering capacity" requirements
> and other such Big Brother Surveillance State clauses, is a friend of ours.

Again, I never called him a friend, but I still submit to you, that his
influence in the legislative process blunted some of the highly offensive
positions.  Sometimes you have to expect legislators to make compromises.
It's a fact of the "democratic process" that Mr. Loomis is so very fond
of.  The result is that to gain influence over a given area of legislative
intent and effort, you sometimes have to sleep with whores (and
occasionally they have VD).

> --Tim May

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

Timothy C. May typed:

> But no Congressman who co-sponsors such legislation as the "National
> Wiretap Initiative," with its "1% of the engineering capacity" requirements
> and other such Big Brother Surveillance State clauses, is a friend of ours.

No legislator at all is our friend.  The legislature is a gateway - we push 
an issue thru it into the politico-legal system, and other groups push 
their own issues back through the gateway at us.  Whoever pushes more, and
times their pushing with when the gate is open, wins.

This isn't about making chums.  Leahy is a gatekeeper, like any other 
legislator. We don't have to like him, just get him to open the gate for us,
and close it for our opponents.

--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/">    Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org">        mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/">         Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P>        Online Activist    </HTML>