Slashdot Mirror
Poll Says Most Americans Favor Crypto Backdoors
Sideways The Dog writes: "According to this MSNBC article, "72 percent of Americans believe that anti-encryption laws would be 'somewhat' or 'very' helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C." I realize that I'm preaching to the choir here, but it is scary how many people do not realize that the bad guys are not going to play fair here. Even granted that people may not realize the tools are already out there for the bad guys to use, I wonder what the polls will say when the backdoor gets compromised and 72% of people get their bank accounts wiped." Update: 09/19 19:26 PM GMT by T : Declan McCullagh adds a link to "the actual text of the question asked by the
pollsters, which Princeton Survey Research Associates describes here." Note the numbers on this page as well.
I'd like to see a new survey:
Should you be allowed to have secrets?
I imagine that we'd see considerably different results.
-Waldo
From reading the article, it seems the questions asked weren't "Do you support anti-crypto?" but instead "Do you think anti-crypto would help catch terrorists?"
Of COURSE anti-crypto has a chance of helping catch terrorists.. if your doctor for example has encrypted files for one of them or something random like that. That doesn't mean I support it or think it's worth it! They're extrapolating people's opinions based upon the not-so-earthshattering observation that crackable crypto has a good shot of helping catch terrorists (and this, in itself, is debatable since they already have strong-crypto for their own internal communications)
--
Anyway, it's MSNBC, which is crap. But it's an important wake-up call.
sulli
RTFJ.
Congress was quick to blame sophisticated encryption methods for the massive intelligence failure last week and is proposing that government officials should have backdoor access to encryption products to aid national security.
Funny... and here I had thought that the primary reasons given for the massive intelligence failure were due to budget constraints and de-escalation of the intelligence community. Sources from the CIA and various government officials have come out and point blank stated that they have a severe lack of spies out there to actually infiltrate these terrorist cells...
So how do they jump from that to blaming it on encryption? Sheesh.
'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
the government has announced that it will soon be
mandatory to use state-approved envelopes to send
all mail.
these new envelopes will be entirely transparent
when viewed under a federally produced lightbulb,
but there is no need to worry about these lamps
getting out to bad people, since it is time-tested
proof that all government employees are completely
honest and lack all self-serving traits present
in every other human being.
besides, it's for your own good and protection!
and if you have something to write that you don't
want everyone to read, maybe it's time for that
all-important self-examination to reveal your
underlying paranoia complex...
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
I wonder what those 72% of people will say when the other 28% of us are in jail for refusing to give up our crypto keys, and they need their servers fixed or their ISP connections troubleshot, and all us geeks are unavailable.
72 percent of Americans believe that anti-encryption laws would be 'somewhat' or 'very' helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks
Read it over and over again. It is not stating that 72 percent of people want their rights taken away. It just states that they think anti-crypto might of helped.
Redo the poll to:
How many people think that the attack wouldn't happen if the US was a cruel military dictatorship?
I bet it would be like 90 percent. Its true. It doesn't mean we want to be a dictatorship, just that it might of prevented it.
Stop knee-jerking, people.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
According to the Washington Post, last Friday Barbra Lee (Democrat from California) said on the house floor: "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." More details are below, copied from here.
...
The Solitary Vote Of Barbara Lee
Congresswoman Against Use of Force
By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 19, 2001; Page C01
"We need to step back," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "We're grieving. We need to step back and think about this so that it doesn't spiral out of control. We have to make sure we don't make any mistakes."
She was walking down a hallway in the Cannon House Office Building. A plainclothes police officer hovered a few steps away, looking very serious. The Capitol Police began guarding Lee on Saturday because of death threats she received after voting against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against anyone associated with last week's terrorist attacks. The resolution passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. Lee's was the sole dissenting vote.
"In times like this," she said, "you have to have some members saying, 'Let's show some restraint.' "
Led by her police bodyguard, she moved along quickly, slipping into her office and closing the door behind her. Inside, the phone lines had shut down under an onslaught of calls from all over the country -- many of them irate, some of them downright nasty -- and her voice mailbox was too full to take any more messages.
"We've gotten thousands of calls and thousands of e-mails," she said. "People are very emotional. . . . They're frustrated and they're angry."
She's 55, a small woman with short black hair. Normally, she has a bright smile, but these days she looks sad, worried, harried. She is quick to point out that she voted to condemn last week's attacks and to allocate $40 billion to fight terrorism.
"I'm just as American and just as patriotic as anybody else," she insists.
She does not rule out military action, she says, but she voted against the authorization to use force because she opposes giving the president the sole decision on when and where to make war. "I believe we must make sure that Congress upholds its responsibilities and upholds checks and balances. This is a representative democracy and it's our responsibility."
War, she believes, is not the most effective way to fight terrorism. "Military action is a one-dimensional reaction to a multidimensional problem," she says. "We've got to be very deliberative and think through the implications of whatever we do."
This is not the first time Lee has stood alone against war. In 1999, during the crisis in Kosovo, she was the only House member to vote against authorizing President Clinton to bomb Serbia. "I'm not a pacifist," she says, "but I don't believe military action should be the only action we embark on."
Fortunately for Lee, she represents one of the most liberal congressional districts in the United States -- California's 9th, which includes Berkeley and Oakland. It's the district that was represented by another antiwar dissident -- Ronald Dellums -- for nearly 28 years. Lee served as Dellums's chief of staff for a decade before she was elected to the California State Assembly in 1990. When Dellums retired in 1998, she won the election to succeed him, and was reelected last year with 85 percent of the vote.
"I would have voted the same way," says Dellums, now president of Washington-based Healthcare International Management. "We need to think this through and ask, 'Are there better ways to do this?' "
"I agonized over this vote all week," she says. "I searched my conscience. I talked to many people. Ultimately, on some votes, you have to vote the way your conscience dictates."
Her agony was exacerbated by the knowledge that her chief of staff, Sandre Swanson, was mourning the death of his cousin Wanda Green, who was a flight attendant on the hijacked United jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.
"I support her decision," Swanson says. "The principle on which she based her decision was that somebody should stand up and say that only Congress has the power to declare war. . . . People say she was unpatriotic. I think it was very patriotic."
"I admire the courage of Barbara Lee," says Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who spent the 1960s in the front lines of the civil rights movement. "She demonstrated raw courage to stand up and vote the way she did. She stood alone -- one against 420. Several other members wanted to be there also but at the same time, like me, they didn't want to be seen as soft on terrorism."
Lewis voted to authorize military action but, he says, he came close to joining Lee in opposition. "I was probably 99 percent of the way there in my heart and my soul," he says, "but in the end I wanted to send the strongest possible message that we can't let terrorism stand."
Lee's vote is reminiscent of the first woman ever elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who voted against the nation's entry into World War I and World War II. It also brings to mind Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, the two senators who voted against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam.
On the House floor last Friday night, Lee quoted Morse: "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." She added: "Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today."
Out in Oakland, Lee's vote is the subject of much debate, some of it heated, says Don Perata, the Democratic state senator who represents Lee's district.
Perata calls Lee's vote "wrongheaded" and he isn't impressed with her explanation of it. "There wasn't a lot of clarity there," he says. "I would have cast a different vote. This is a time for a united front in America, particularly in Congress."
But, he predicts, Lee's vote probably will not affect her chances for reelection.
"The district is overwhelmingly Democratic," he says. "There are probably more people who are to the left of the Democrats than there are Republicans."
Also, he adds: "Barbara is very popular here. She's just a very, very nice woman -- and in this business that counts for a lot."
On Monday, Perata says, California talk radio was abuzz with callers denouncing Lee as a communist.
"I was wincing," he says, "because that's not Barbara. She did not cast that vote because she's unpatriotic. She loves this country and its opportunities as much as anybody."
Meanwhile, back in her office on Capitol Hill, Lee was furiously working the phones, talking to constituents and local media outlets.
"I hope that when I get my message out," she says, "people will understand why I did what I did. Whether they agree with me or not, they'll understand that I want to bring these [terrorists] to justice as much as anybody else does."
She declined to speculate on the effect her vote might have on her popularity. "This was not," she says, "a poll-driven vote."
Please, anyone who takes an online poll seriously is loosing his mind.
The mindless law-and-order rednecks who hang around at FreeRepublic.com regularily post comments on their forums encouraging their members to "Freep" the poll (using their lingo). Now, if Slashdot had posted a notice requesting that *we* all 'Slashdotted' that poll - do you think the results may have been different?
Without the usual mention of The Three Greatest Lies (Statistics, Statistics and Statistics), I will mention that ONLINE polls even miss the basics of reasonable methods... like unbiased 'random' samples for instance.
However, if the question was asked as "Do you support the government having unlimited backdoors into all crypto tools, even if it meant your ecommerce transactions were more vulnerable to hacking as an unintentional result?" - I HIGHLY doubt we's see 72% saying yes!
I AM, therefore I THINK!
.. spawning Microsofts new slogan.. who do you want to be today?
Only 'flamers' flame!
I have kept my e-mail signature the same for over three years, but on the day of the WTC attacks I changed it to this quote. I think now more than ever we are in danger of losing the encryption war. Besides back door or not the criminal isn't playing fair. They will use their own encryption mechanisms. Its not hard to make one. Then again you all knew this.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
There is no explicit mention of the word "privacy" in the constituion. The closest thing is in the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
With the current tapping abilities, both legal and illegal , it looks like soon, if not already, warrants will be unnecessary for law enforcement to peruse all of your communications. Also, remember that your cell phone has a GPS chip in it, so you are carrying a "leaky" communications device with a tracking chip built into it.
Unreasonable search is what we're talking about here. If the government decides to allow tapping into 100% of my communications, even though I'm not conversin with people about illegal activities, I want to make sure that I have the right to avoid plaintext and keep what I talk about unavailable if I so choose.
This is my right. It is being trampled.
Did you notice that the cell phone calls that have been reported throughout this whole ordeal were recorded and traced? Doesn't that frighten you in the least? Don't you feel you have the right as an American to some modicum of privacy?
Okay: Everyone raise your hand who is willing to die for their right to use crypto. I mean really die -- or even suffer serious bodily harm -- standing up for your rights?
Whenever I see these topics come up, they're always accompanied by one-line comments "They'll only get my gpg when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!" Come on now -- would you let them kill you rather than give up your crypto?
You find out what people truly, honestly believe, deep in their hearts and souls, when they're faced with the raw reality of standing firm against inimidation and violence. Looking down the barrel of a gun is a damned good test of one's convictions...
All about me
It's not what they do with it now, when the only thing they care about is terrorism, but what they do 20 years from now or however long it is when all this terrorism stuff evaporates and the infrastructure is still in place that worries me. Then a bored intelligence infrastructure trying to justify its own existence will start abusing their resources and go after the trivial stuff that isn't worthy of such invasiveness. Many of the defenders of such a scheme that I've heard suggest that it'd have as stringent safeguards as wiretapping, and of course we all know how rluctant the courts are to give those sorts of warrants out.
In case anyone takes you seriously, I'll just point out that you first encrypt your message in you own 4096 bit MujaCrypt 3.0, then wrap that in the backdoored Fed-O-Crypt 1.0 and it all looks lovely and innocent.
(Or you use disposable phones, face to face meetings, mail drops and personals ads like they actually do...)
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The media should quit talking about script kiddies and address the real threats: social engineering. I guarantee you that after working for a couple years in a financial, customer care workplace where we were making outbound calls to resolve financial matters for our customers, it wasn't the phone that was the limiting factor on obtaining information, it was the person on the other end of the line. Probably 1 time out of 15 I can get a customer service rep to give me more than enough info on someone given certain little bits of data. With smaller companies, sometimes just the name, and a well-meaning rep will be all I need to get more info than I could possibly even want (once in a great while I actually had to cut people off while they dropped all kinds of info because I was too busy to write it all down!). That's not to say that I would ever think of trying to breach security for my own personal illegal use, because I expect others not to misuse my personal data either, but let's quit cracking down on the technical factors, and crack down on the degenerate human factor instead...
Now, one of us uses a copy of PGP (pre-backdoor) or codes his own blowfish app and uses it to encrypt her letters to CyptoGRRL Magazine. How is the US going to stop her from doing this?
What do officials say?
"We were randomly sampling the crypto streams traversing the net and noticed that our backdoor key didn't work on your message stream. You are in violation of US Code BlahBlahBlah."
Doesn't that seem to open some other sticky questions? I mean, if I'm not breaking the law (other than using strong crypto), how are they going to tell or prosecute me?
It seems that you are protected by the chicken and the egg principle. To wit, to know that I am using "undefeatable" crypto, you have to get a wiretap (or a search warrant). To get a wiretap you have to prove that I am breaking the law by using undefeatable crypto.
Besides, development of Open Source versions of crypto programs would continue in other parts of the world. The US won't be able to stop that. I could just download the program from CryptoGRRL.de (as long as the server actually resided outside of the US).
The danger here is not a technical one, but a political one. It's a lesson history tried to teach us once before, but I haven't seen anyone really doing a comparison to a very similar set of circumstances that have happened prior.
Today I'm sure that the majority of our leaders in government are honestly concerned about how to deal with how to thwart attacks like we all saw last week. To do this they see information gathering as a critical tool to use for these ends. To gather this information they wish to put together an infrastructure of snooping abilities that go far beyond issues dealing with cryptography. We're also looking at phone tapping and possible postal snooping. The majority of citizens at this moment are more than happy to give up these liberties to give law enforcement the tools they seek. Lives are at stake after all!
Okay, so what happens when there's no longer a terrorist threat to be dealt with? Does this infrastructure just vanish? Not bloody likely. I don't believe that there's any kind of conspiracy today from either the right or left side of the spectrum to misuse these tools. What about 10 years from now? 20? 50? Can we really entrust a governmental body we haven't even seen yet to only use these kinds of tools in an honest way?
To keep this non-partisan, let's say the "Widget" party takes a majority in both houses and the presidency. Once in a majority, what all stops them to increase this monitoring built on the infrastructure we are proposing today? How can we be assured that what they're monitoring isn't just criminals, but the opposition party campaigns? Rather than a tool for law enforcemnent we could be looking at a tool for political power.
As to the comparison I was referring to at the beginning of this post, I'm of course talking about the rise of the Nazi party to power in Germany. Too many similarities to be funny. Weak economy, terrorist attacks on urban areas, a populace all too willing to give up liberties to those that can deliver on the promise that they won't have to be afraid of a building blowing up on them. Oh, and a bit of a racial element tossed into the mix.
No, I'm not even beginning to suggest that the Nazis are looking to take over America. What I am saying here is that there is a precedent to how people are reacting to these recent events. The German people openly welcomed the kind of lock down the Nazis brought with them because they saw the streets truly get to be a safer place. Unfortunately, what they didn't see was the enormous cost of that safety until it was far too late. What I'm concerned about is that in our fear at this time we may very well not see the high cost we will end up paying decades down the road.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
I find myself overcome with heartfelt respect and admiration for this brave, principled person. Perhaps there is hope for us after all. Thank you for posting this.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
the problem is, there's just no correlation between deprivation of existing personal communications freedoms/rights and increased security. the 'bad guys' will continue to deploy what they have (or develop better) and the rest of us will have taken several steps backward in our civil rights.
stop appealing to pure emotion. the imagery of the WTC catastrophe and the slim benefit in security you'll gain by trashing personal freedoms isn't based on rational thinking, but purely on emotion. the lawmakers need to think long and hard about how effective it will be to further regulate the law-abiding population.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
If you read the article, you'll find it was a regular poll, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Sept. 13 and 14.
Disclaimer: I am not denying that the WTC attack is a tragedy, I am not denying that something needs to be done. I am merely presenting some facts that may place things into a bit better perspective.
WTC death toll: ~5200
US weekly deaths attributable to smoking: ~9000
US weekly deaths attributable to traffic accidents: ~3400
US weekly deaths attributable to drinking: ~2300
Five thousand dead in a single accident is, indeed, highly tragic and morally outrageous: our anger is justified.
We have far, FAR more people dying of smoking, including a lot of deaths caused by second-hand smoke. Yet the government is doing nothing to protect the victims -- often children in a smoking household -- from this attack on their right to life.
We have far, far more people dying in traffic accidents, and it's very likely that nearly half those deaths are victims of another driver's idiocy. Yet the government is doing nothing to protect us from those drivers, even though the solution is as simple as instituting mandatory driver training and a higher quality of testing.
We also have too many people dying because of alcohol. Yet the government isn't serious about cracking down on, say, drinking drivers; nor does it get tough on violence that's been exacerbated by drinking.
My point? There are plenty of tragedies happening every day. But this time it's got people panicked, so it's far easier to get draconian laws in place.
Trust the government? No. It doesn't act rationally.
[Sources: US CDC, NHTSA]
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
What do you mean by saying that the government is doing nothing?
/. to assume.) What more do you want?
For traffic accidents:
There are seatbelt laws, vehicle safety standards, lighting standards, collision tests, traffic laws (that comprise whole chapters in most state legal codes), civil engineering to design highways that reduce accidents, and much more.
In fact, the red tape you need to go through to build a production motor vehicle is incredible... I would like to see you just try and get a few buddies to build a car, and try to give it away (with a helpful donation from somebody like Wm. Gates III or equivalent). Half of your development team would have to be doing nothing but dealing with government regulations and filling out paperwork.
Regarding drinking:
Ever heard of the 18th Ammendment to the US Constitution? Read it sometime. I would say that is a rather drastic approach to dealing with drinking, and there are substantial laws to deal with it, including one case where somebody who just killed somebody in an accident will now spend the rest of his life in jail because he was drunk while driving. What more do you want, the death peanalty for driving drunk? I'll admit though that I get surprised when I hear about people that have been arrested 30+ times for a DUI and somehow still keep their license (being a friend of the mayor, bribing judges, finding a loophole in the law, the arresting officer doesn't show up to the trial, etc.)
In some ways I regret that the 18th Ammendment was repealed, but even with that off the books now, there are still many regulatory laws controlling how alcoholic is produced and consumed... even if it is just going to be used in a fuel take on a car (complicating the issues I mentioned above).
Smoking:
Why do you think the tobacco companies setteled out of court with the law suits from most of the US states? Almost every state in the US now has some sort of "indoor clean air act" that prohibits smoking in public areas. Despite warnings from the US Surgeon General, countless piles of money spent on public service ads (including television, radio, newspaper, and magazine ads, not to mention billboards, posters, and anti-smoking programs for schools), a heavy public relations effort (including entire episodes of television news magazines like 60 Minutes or Dateline), millions of people still smoke.
********************
OK, I'll presume for a moment that you meant the United States Government. (I was presuming that you were an American... which isn't always good on
There is a difference between passing laws and actually getting them enforced. And in all of the cases I'll admit that we as citizens of this country can do more to help improve what we are doing in these areas.
But to say that the government is doing nothing is really stretching the imagination.
She voted against this resolution which gives G.W. Bush power to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those "he deterimines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks"
...
H.J. Res. 64
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the
United States:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.--
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.