RE: Hiawatha Bray's column on key-recovery crypto

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

At 09:44 AM 9/11/97 -0400, Hiawatha Bray wrote:
>What a cool idea!  Why didn't I think of that?  
>
>Hiawatha
>
>On Thursday, September 11, 1997 9:41 AM, Arnold G. Reinhold [SMTP:reinhold@worl
>
>> 
>> Hiawatha, I enjoyed your column (Boston Globe Business Section Sept. 11),
>> but why don't you announce that you have a PGP key, print it's signature in
>> a column and ask people to use it to send you news tips? This would enable
>> a freedom of the press challange to GAK.

Further, he could give pointers to Private Idaho, John Doe, etc.,
and encourage the use of anonymous tips to the newsmedia. Since
I operate a cyberspace parking garage (the WinSock Remailer) and
since the Lippo Administration is the most Nixonian since Tricky
himself, I would think that the major media would be up-in-arms
over threats to anonymous communication over the web. After all,
which reporter-team doesn't want to be the next Woodward and
Bernstein? I can understand (while not agreeing with...) my local
rag's opposition to the second amendment, but the total apathy
shown to dangers faced by the first is hard to fathom. I read the
Herald pretty carefully, yet there has been NOTHING this week on
the crypto-controversy. Nothing. While I often disagree with the
Miami Herald's reporting decisions (both substance and emphasis)
it is rare that I find it this scary. <sigh>
JMR

P.S. When *Seth* said, "(and wow, do they like to rant on every
issue)" about Libertarians, my irony-meter broke its needle.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh.

iQEPAwUBNBh3ITUhsGSn1j2pAQF4BQfPZqEWo714dVrd0tQH+fk3jN2nzwUEtlGh
wB6ggUbEJ1GX+LaGdEnWlM1xfFYvIB+ej/3PHumw7P3yIYYNt4XI480LVEEFxfWO
nohAmIOe19+zt73wTZ1Oa9cNDYdOAbrMS5YW3BeyCY1i6nGkaCqXQteaoEJ4MxE1
V+jRIW9sJAdll4+ATw+xzQafl4K8uFk0soCcaupb05FeJVkLseiBxmLl1kBQwOpr
3Y6O8gO8v+ZmlaWsehlgciM47jkOpaAKNX+4b2mHx0+NrfQcfXNQWQ6JoNbx5NaO
L35zof4Ds0bt+t3sIiQG7i7kR5Bbsul4vSfb6R14TtZ6Og==
=HOEQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 4:30 PM -0700 9/11/97, Jim Ray wrote:

>Bernstein? I can understand (while not agreeing with...) my local
>rag's opposition to the second amendment, but the total apathy
>shown to dangers faced by the first is hard to fathom. I read the
>Herald pretty carefully, yet there has been NOTHING this week on
>the crypto-controversy. Nothing. While I often disagree with the
>Miami Herald's reporting decisions (both substance and emphasis)
>it is rare that I find it this scary. <sigh>

As Declan noted, when he wrote,

"* Ban on sale of crypto without a backdoor. Five year & fine (maybe
$250,000?) if violated. Prosecutions can be held in closed-door
courtrooms, publishers of info about case to be held in contempt of court."

this means newspapers may not write articles on this case, or the law.

This is why the "Miami Herald" dares not cover this.

(But seriously, the above example cited, that publishers of info being held
in contempt of court, seems too wacky even for the current Congress. Have
they no understanding of what a free press is? Free press applying to any
of us, of course, and not just to the "officially recognized major news
sources." I can't beleve that could withstand court scrutiny.)

And the prosecutions in closed-door courts would seem also to violate
various provisions of the Constitution, including the 6th. (That the
"foreign intelligence surveillance court" (FISUR) has not been challenged
perhaps has to do with its origins under one of the Emergency Powers
things, and its limited applicability to ordering surveillance. But to
extend this to, say, the prosecution of someone, even a citizen, seems like
a blatant "star chamber" situation.)

The rest of this verison is equally bad--sounding. (I mention "this
version," because each of the committees--Intelligence, Commerce, National
Security, whatever--is fighting to make their versions more Big Brotherish.)

What a fucking bunch of criminals.

--Tim May


There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

I'm reading the bill more closely. This is incredibly slick work.

1. When it appears that any person is selling, importing, or distributing
non-backdoor'd crypto or "about" to do so, the Atty General can sue to
stop them. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by
the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary
restraining order against the party being sued." 

2. There are provisions for closing the proceedings -- at the request of
the "party against whom injunction is being sought." "Public disclosure of
the proceedings shall be treated as contempt of court." Can also be closed
if judge makes finding. 

3. You can request an advisory opinion from the Atty Gen to see if crypto
you're about to give out (even for free) violates the law. That will get
you off the hook during any prosecution. 

4. If DoJ loses at trial court, they get an expedited appeal. 

More interestingly, this gives courts including the FISA court (yes, the
secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap) jurisdiction;
they can issue ex parte orders giving police access to plaintext. Also
lets U.S. government coordinate with other governments in doing such.

You get notified not later than 90 days afterwards. There are a lot of
other "checks and balances" here that will be touted as safeguards.

-Declan


On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:

> At 4:30 PM -0700 9/11/97, Jim Ray wrote:
> 
> >Bernstein? I can understand (while not agreeing with...) my local
> >rag's opposition to the second amendment, but the total apathy
> >shown to dangers faced by the first is hard to fathom. I read the
> >Herald pretty carefully, yet there has been NOTHING this week on
> >the crypto-controversy. Nothing. While I often disagree with the
> >Miami Herald's reporting decisions (both substance and emphasis)
> >it is rare that I find it this scary. <sigh>
> 
> As Declan noted, when he wrote,
> 
> "* Ban on sale of crypto without a backdoor. Five year & fine (maybe
> $250,000?) if violated. Prosecutions can be held in closed-door
> courtrooms, publishers of info about case to be held in contempt of court."
> 
> this means newspapers may not write articles on this case, or the law.
> 
> This is why the "Miami Herald" dares not cover this.
> 
> (But seriously, the above example cited, that publishers of info being held
> in contempt of court, seems too wacky even for the current Congress. Have
> they no understanding of what a free press is? Free press applying to any
> of us, of course, and not just to the "officially recognized major news
> sources." I can't beleve that could withstand court scrutiny.)
> 
> And the prosecutions in closed-door courts would seem also to violate
> various provisions of the Constitution, including the 6th. (That the
> "foreign intelligence surveillance court" (FISUR) has not been challenged
> perhaps has to do with its origins under one of the Emergency Powers
> things, and its limited applicability to ordering surveillance. But to
> extend this to, say, the prosecution of someone, even a citizen, seems like
> a blatant "star chamber" situation.)
> 
> The rest of this verison is equally bad--sounding. (I mention "this
> version," because each of the committees--Intelligence, Commerce, National
> Security, whatever--is fighting to make their versions more Big Brotherish.)
> 
> What a fucking bunch of criminals.

> I'm reading the bill more closely. This is incredibly slick work.
> 
> 1. When it appears that any person is selling, importing, or distributing
> non-backdoor'd crypto or "about" to do so, the Atty General can sue to
> stop them. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by
> the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary
> restraining order against the party being sued." 

Fucking A, Declan!  (A highly precise legal term of art for all you
laypeople out there.)  Even if these guys don't give a shit about the
First Amendment, or have forgotten how hard it is to get a prior
restraint Order, have they excised the Separation of Powers doctrine
from the Constitution too?

oh.forgot.national security.never mind.

-Jim

At 06:12 PM 9/11/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>I'm reading the bill more closely. This is incredibly slick work.
>
>1. When it appears that any person is selling, importing, or distributing
>non-backdoor'd crypto or "about" to do so, the Atty General can sue to
>stop them. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by
>the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary
>restraining order against the party being sued." 

They get an *automatic* TRO?

[...]
>More interestingly, this gives courts including the FISA court (yes, the
>secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap) jurisdiction;
>they can issue ex parte orders giving police access to plaintext. Also
>lets U.S. government coordinate with other governments in doing such.

Is there any way of finding out the names of the judges sitting on the FISA
court?


--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
  PGP encrypted mail preferred.
  DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
  http://rc5.distributed.net/

Yep, they get an automatic TRO. Amazing, huh, what National Security
arguments can do?

Not sure if we can find out much about the FISA court. Very clandestine. 
WashPostMag ran something a few months ago. I'm copying this to David, who
probably knows more about it than anyone else I know. 

-Declan


On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Lucky Green wrote:

> At 06:12 PM 9/11/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >I'm reading the bill more closely. This is incredibly slick work.
> >
> >1. When it appears that any person is selling, importing, or distributing
> >non-backdoor'd crypto or "about" to do so, the Atty General can sue to
> >stop them. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by
> >the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary
> >restraining order against the party being sued." 
> 
> They get an *automatic* TRO?
> 
> [...]
> >More interestingly, this gives courts including the FISA court (yes, the
> >secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap) jurisdiction;
> >they can issue ex parte orders giving police access to plaintext. Also
> >lets U.S. government coordinate with other governments in doing such.
> 
> Is there any way of finding out the names of the judges sitting on the FISA
> court?
> 
> 
> --Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
>   PGP encrypted mail preferred.
>   DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
>   http://rc5.distributed.net/
> 
>

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Lucky Green wrote:

> >secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap) jurisdiction;
> >they can issue ex parte orders giving police access to plaintext. Also
> >lets U.S. government coordinate with other governments in doing such.
> 
> Is there any way of finding out the names of the judges sitting on the FISA
> court?

Not that I know of, though I do know that U.S. District Court Judge Joyce
Green served on the FISA court for seven years.

Background: The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act established a
special, secret court of current Federal district court judges. They
approve warrants in secret hearings, with no opposing attorneys present.
The judges are required to be available 24 hours a day for emergency
hearings. Some happen in the middle of the night in the judge's home.

-Declan