EFF Action Alert -- Online Freedoms In The Balance

dan g sent in word of this EFF Action Alert about keeping your rights to freely communicate without government eavesdropping. It includes sample letters you might want to send to your elected representatives, if you'd like to remind them that you elected them, and that they represent you. As the alert points out, snail mail is too slow -- but email, faxes and phone calls are not.

Comments

to the "layman"

[benshutman]

here is my question - how do you convince the "non techie" that crypto/privacy matters? most are quick to give it up to be "safe"

Re:to the "layman"

[Annoying]

Remind them that e-commerce and to a lesser extent business in general use it to protect the private information in their databases as well as their businesses documents.

Re:to the "layman"

[Nater]

Pose a rhetorical question:

Would it make sense to ban envelopes in the postal system?

Re:to the "layman"

[mmontour]

Envelopes are not the real-world equivalent of strong cryptography. Envelopes deter casual snooping, but it's very easy for a government agency to open one and examine the contents (probably without leaving any indication that it had been opened).

When dealing with strong cryptography, the equivalent question would have to be "would it make sense to ban welded-shut, lead-lined steel boxes in the postal system"? And to an average person on the street, the answer would probably be 'yes'.

Re:to the "layman"

[Nater]

Well until someone can develop an easily crackable, but strongly tamper-evident form of encryption, existing cryptographic techniques must necessarily be construed as equivalent to the gamut of everything from envelopes to lead-lined welded steel crates, simply because the alternative of "no encryption" is equivalent to a postcard. Think of it this way: right now you can either send email in invincible crates (PGP or GPG encrypted), on a postcard (cannonical form), or via a secure private postal service (encrypted VPN). Under those circumstances, does it make sense to ban encryption, which is at the heart of the only two viable forms of secure transmission? The idea of mandatory backdoors has also been suggested in Congress, which I find so short-sighted as to be beyond laughable and into the realm of sickening. Bugtraq has proven time and time again that if a backdoor exists, someone will find it, and most likely, it will be someone who wasn't supposed to find it. Key escrow is probably a compromise that would pass at this juncture and achieve the goal of allowing law enforcement access to encrypted materials without making said materials generally insecure. However, the ultimate goal is to stop crime, including the crimes we consider "terrorism". We must remind ourselves that police are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end (OT - I think if you asked a politician to define what is meant by "terrorist", I could demonstrate that certain police forces in the United States meet that politician's criteria).

Obviously, the problem at hand is that hijacked planes were deliberately flown into buildings. The use of encryption is pretty far removed from the act of hijacking a plane. I think a better solution would be to redesign airplanes so that it is impossible to get from the passenger cabin to the flight deck without a) leaving the plane, b) depressurizing the passenger cabin, or c) something else at least as undesirable for the would-be hijackers. Those are solutions that will stop hijackers. Banning strong encryption or giving law enforcement more power to pry will only cause hijackers to find another way to talk to each other, and then laugh at us for giving up on privacy.

it's a tradeoff

[matrix0040]

You can't have freedom and security at the same time. you've to sacrifice one for other. til now we had more freedom .. so much that these terrorists could get in, get flight training and then attack against us.

But now what these ppl are doing is sacrificing freedom for security. that is victory for the terrorists. The way to go is to explain to the senators that if this is passed then it'll lead to a more state controlled regime defeating the entire philosophy of the free society. that'll be victory for these terrorists. terrorists aim is to spread terror not kill .. that's the mean of doing it. And by getting terrorized and panicing and making such rash decisions we're giving the victory to them !

Re:it's a tradeoff

[emmavl]

"A man who is willing to give up a little freedom for a little security, deserves neither."

--Benjamin Franklin

email is NOT the right way...

[Masem]

Every time we encourage other /.'ers to send mail to their congresspersons, it's been pointed out that email is typically read by an aide, and has less of an impact than snail mail, faxing, or a phone call.

In the past, I've used the fax service provided by ACLU to contact my reps, and have gotten (most likely form letter) replies back from them, but it does tell me someone at least read it and understood my concerns.

Contribute!

[EllisDees]

I just signed up for an automatic $10 a month payroll deduction to go straight to the EFF. My company will match 15% of whatever I put in, so I thought I might as well contribute to something that I actually care about.