Slashdot Mirror
Interim Response from Philip Zimmermann
Overreaction to Washington Post ArticleIt seems that my recent clarification of how I was represented in the 21 September Washington Post article has itself created a deluge of harsh criticism of the Washington Post and the reporter who wrote the article.
People seem to be assuming the Washington Post is part of some grand conspiracy to restrict the availability of strong cryptography. I would like to say that this is an overreaction and a misinterpretation on the part of these critics.
I believe this was an honest misunderstanding by the people at the Post, and I never meant to imply in my previous clarification that this was done on purpose or with any malicious intent. On the contrary, I believe the Post worked hard to be fair in the story and had the best of intentions when they ran it.
Further, I'd like to say that all the individual facts and quotes were reported correctly. But the Post connected the dots in a slightly different way to conclude that I was feeling guilty even though I was simply feeling grief and anger just like everyone else since the attacks occurred. Overall, I thought the article was fine except for that one line that says I was "overwhelmed with guilt."
My purpose for sending out my original clarification was not to criticize the Post but to assure everyone that I am still standing firm on my convictions that PGP and other strong encryption products should be available to the public, with no back doors.
Through the years of coverage the Post has given the issue of cryptography restrictions, I have never detected any bias at the Post to promote restrictions on crypto. In fact, if they have any bias at all, it seems to be in the other direction. They helped me when I needed to keep the Justice Department at bay in 1995. We will need them again in the coming weeks as we in the crypto community attempt to keep the freedoms we have, as legislators try to impose new restrictions on strong crypto.
I find this jihad of criticism of the Post to be inappropriate. I can easily tell from talking with the reporter that her intentions were good. It is grossly unfair to punish her with all this hate mail. It's embarrassing to me and damaging to her. If anyone in the world of journalism wants any further clarification from me on that reporter's competence or journalistic integrity, feel free to call me directly and I will explain it to you in more detail.
I am in London at a data security conference, without as much Internet access as I have at home, so I cannot keep writing about this matter for much longer. I hope this letter is enough to put this matter to rest.
Sincerely,
Philip Zimmermann-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.3iQA/AwUBO7ILqcdGNjmy13leEQLryACfffYuStFXNTC0aWnJStMEAWsbQSgAn0ID d2bqoxnEbABk+1V/edlzC84A =uBHG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
That's the BEST time to interview someone, sure the answers you get might not make sense sometimes, but it really shows how a person feels, which is the point of the interview! And plus, you'd think someone with the smarts of Zimmerman would be able to articulate himself in any situation! Is he scared of what might happen to him if he says what he really thinks?? Labeled as a terrorist??
Change the word 'interview' to the word 'articles' and the link works. Of course, if you read this, you've probably worked that out!
i think the whole idea of purposly misinterpeting the interview had to do with the line that went something along this -> "I asked her to repeat the interview back to me and i told her that i was not feeling guilty for making PGP ect., but when it got to print, the editors decided to change it around ...". If that's not purposly changing his words around, i dunno what is.
I am very glad to read a sane reaction to something which could easily have become a huge anti- WPost flame. Now let's hope that this influences all the other people who are discussing encryption at the moment (read government), to get a somewhat more sensible discussion about privacy and encryption instead of a fear-driven hype against terrorism.
I intend to live forever, so far so good.
Wow, perfect fodder for slashdot then
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It's good to see that many people have a sound head on their shoulders and are not engaging in over-reaching knee-jerk reactions.
Find the time to write your congresscritter, but do it when you are not emotional. Tell them that security research is not cracking, that cracking is not terrorism (if you don't take the time to properly secure your systems, you need to take some liability!), tell them that crypto is free speech, it is the ability of people to have a private conversation! A conversation without big ears, between a limited group of people. Then let the letter sit overnight and read it in fresh light.
If you really want them to listen, take the time to print out your letter, after you have sent it online, address some envelopes and send them hard copy!
If you really wan to stir some feathers, then remind them of the declaration of independence - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
Chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
who cares what usa does, you think someone in St Korea cant make something equaly as good? or in france? or norway?
jihad != holy war
jihad == troubled times/problems
I am an avid PGP user under three diffrent Operating Systems. To me there is no better product on the market. I have used it both for personal use and for professional use. I personally can see where a group of people could easily use this product for malitious intent. However, it has saved me quite a bit of heartache as a system administrator in the past and strong encryption in general has made the life of the security minded professional a little bit easier to deal with. I will stand behind not only PGP, but every kind of strong encription that is available on the open market and consider it to be a serious invasion of my privacy to not be able to use it.
I have read the article in the post and agree that it is a well written article with the exception of how Phil feels. Rather the reported was doing it intentionally or not is up for grabs but because of Phil's integrity, I am willing to accept that this was probably just as he has said, the editor changed a few things before it hit the presses. No that is not fair and if he did not say it then there should be a retraction. But I have worked with reporters who have screwed up and retractions are not as easy to get as the story itself.
Phil, keep up the fight and dont give up on your morals. I couldnt agree more that strong encryption is a right of every person on this earth. I couldnt agree more that it will be used for ill-intent. But it does so much more good than bad.
Carl G. Jung
--
"With one breath, with one flow, You will know Synchronicity" -La Policia
"I find this jihad of criticism of the Post to be inappropriate. I
can easily tell from talking with the reporter that her intentions
were good. It is grossly unfair to punish her with all this hate
mail."
Smells like slashdot crowd usual reactions to similar matters.
Can't we expect a little more from this crowd?
Can't we have a dialog without having the word "hate" mentionned?
go ahead and mod me as flambait...
First: If PGP is strong, then what's the use of wiretapping telecommunications?
Second: What do you think of Perfect Privacy ?
You are pure evil. The government, and all governments, have long had a tendancy to oppress their citizens. The founding fathers of this nation discussed this with candor.
Thus, to imply that having suspicion in regards to the state seeking greater powers to constantly surveil and police it's citizenry, [just in case they might be up to no good] is unamerican... well than, you have entirely missed the founding principals of this country, which have served to make it so great.
You insult the blood of patriots who died to protect your liberties, to so readily be willing to give them up.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Another illustration of mob mentality - reaction without thinking.
If people continue to react impulsively with arguments based on second, third (nth) hand information - what sort of precedence for electronic communication, are we the technologically minded setting?
We are always told as children to listen to both sides of the argument before reacting - hmmm look where we have arrived in adulthood react to someone else's comment about an argument.
Like the saying goes "Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large numbers"
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
Did the government treat you well when they were going after you for writing PGP? Of course it would have been better (and just) if they left you alone. Were they polite in the course of events, or did they make things unpleasant for you?
Thank you for PGP.
I agree with you, but I think (fear?) that it doesn't come from some conspiration against crypto, but from the fact that often newspapers tend to "correct" reality a bit in order to make their articles sound more "strong". I've witnessed this happen a couple of times. After all, normal, flat life and feelings are a bit too "grey" to attract the public. A nice black/white strikes much more....
I think the thing to take away from any of this stuff is that technology no matter what it is and why it exists can be misused and that in itself is no reason to stop it.
The fact that some of the terrorists might have used PGP is not in itself surprising - they were planning an operation where secrecy is vital and thus they used a secure system - they could have as easily created some code known only to them so the method they used is somewhat irelevant.
The same goes for the planes, they were designed to transport people but they have lots of fuel and become a flying bomb in the wrong hands.
So do we ban planes and crypto software ?
Lets all take a step back from this and look at it in the cold light of day for a minute. Over reaction now will result in long term effects - the US govt has been against strong crypto for many many years - the block on exporting 129k encryption are a case in point - claiming that it might help people commit crimes and hide information, but these are ideas and codes and someone will get them.
So do we ban it ? Why ? isnt it simply arrogance for the US to think that no one else in the world can develop this stuff ? and theres always the secret code devised only for you.
The argument that they might have been able to find out about it is also bullshit, you could disguise this stuff in language so effecitevly you would never get close, so that invalidates that argument.
The fact is the government in the US and in other countries wants to control free access to information and prevent people from hiding it away - the attempts to stop crypto are aimed at their populations - to prevent people from hiding money and assetts, from opposing the government etc
The sacry thing is that as i see the patrotism grow in the US i see a government cracking down on elemental freedoms and toughening laws - computer crime, crypto, etc Whats next freedom of assembly, freedom of speech.
We all need to keep an eye and a ear on the world otherwise what we miss may cost is more than we can ever guess.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
... that kind of hatemail anyways. Who do they think they are winning over?
I think this was the right thing to do. Since people can't learn to control themselves. Maybe this will wake someone up.
He stated perfectly clearly in the old article that he liked the Post, and he thought it was a honest mistake. What more do you want?
Even if matters were otherwise, you are destroying for yourself by stooping down to the American election campaign level - ie mud pies.
Philip, why are you interested in cryptography??
It seems that no-one understands you anyway so you might as well send everything as plain ASCII!
Although, given that we usually don't read articles before going totally non-linear, it's probably unrealistic to expect people to read the howto.
Best Slashdot Co
But...
The Washington Post DOES deserve critism. Phil is very polite to assure that there were good intentions and that facts were presented properly. Unfortunately, good intentions aren't always enough and the facts reported were not entirely correct.
The issue at hand is the reported guilt that Phil felt. By his own account, he had gone to great lengths to ensure that mistake was not made. And yet the mistake was made and Phil's apparent guilt was reported as fact. Why? Because someone at The Post drew their own incorrect conclusion.
I'm all for reporters putting elements togeather to ferret out the truth of a story. Its part of what makes a good investigative reporter. However, in this case someone put 2 and 2 togeather, got 5... and went ahead with it without any fact checking. Surely Phil wouldn't have been THAT hard to contact for a followup (be it in person, voice, or email).
The Washington Post is a professional, world-class organization. Their reporters are professionals with a great deal of power to direct the attention and impressions of issues held by average citizens. Some of which happen to be in our law enforcement agencies, Congress, and other positions of power and policy. Because of this, the Post and its reporters should be held to a high standard.
The Washington Post failed to meet this standard. They should feel ashamed and are entirely worthy of harsh critism.
Even if they're not deserving of hate mail.
After all of this explosion about crypto and backdoors and limiting the civil liberties of Americans and anyone else we can cause trouble for, it is somewhat ironic (and more than a little tragic) to find that a tremendous amount of information has been gathered through understanding relationships and actions of the perpetrators. This according to the butthead press corps in the US.
This has been pointed out elsewhere, possibly by a congressperson even, but what would our law enforcement agencies do with the tremendous amount of information they are asking to have access to, when they can't properly connect the dots that they already have in plain text right in front of them?
When something like 20 foreign nationals from the same general region of the world get truck driver licenses and apply for hazardous materials hauling permits all within a couple of months of each other, somebody in some FBI office somewhere should ask some questions. There was nothing encrypted in that transaction, and they are only now putting that together.
Besides all of this, bin Laden doesn't even use technology to communicate anymore, having resorted to no-tech messangers to avoid CIA/NSA listening posts. At least that's what our news media is telling us...
At mediadishonesty.com there is a media dishonesty rating system. See the link standard dishonesty rating system. As a rating system it is insightful and tough. The author claims a score of 30 bad points is reasonable.
In general i think most press dishonesty is in pursuit of the aim to be more interesting. That's the main selling value. Political agendas are much less important to press than most people think.
Useful moderation system for Slashdot? Very valuable, yes. Question is how. Too heavy for full use.
Although I completely agree with the the "free speech" approach to justifying crypto, I fear that at a time like this, it isn't convincing enough to many people ("So what about some crumbly paper that's 200+ years old - People are dying NOW!"). If that's all that's stopping a clampdown on crypto, you can kiss it goodbye. And worst case, once the "free speech" argument has had holes poked in it, there's no telling where else that precedent will be used.
A better approach, it seems to me, is to point out the mind-boggling arrogance of the assumption that strong crypto can ONLY originate in the USA. Sure, we're clever, but it's not like there aren't any clever people anywhere else in the world! Outlawing crypto HERE will NOT prevent the bad guys from using it THERE!
They helped me when I needed to keep the Justice Department at bay in 1995.
Good people to not piss of in case the need arises again then, eh?
Mr Zimmermann:
I hold you in high regard for your principals and the contributions you have made to the freedom of speech. But I dont think you undersand the word correctly like most other people. I will urge you to watch the CNN's little docu on Islam. As mentioned, in the entire KORAN there are 5-6 references to the word....and mostly the mention is about the battle one fights with oneself!
Uneducated Moslems have been misled by this word. They have been betrayed by people with evil motives. One way the educated community can make a contribution to the cause of anti-terrorism is to really understand both sides of the story. Rather, three sides of the story: yours, mine and the real-hard-truth.
Voltaire: God is dead.
God: Voltaire is dead!
What’s the point of posting the PGP signature if you don't also post the text exactly as signed, including the “begin signed” and “end signed” delimiters. The signature is unverifiable without the precise text that was signed.
No point. Except to look cool.
--
“Doh!”
I(u2:#a/++kkBR=
:>
...
Hey, this is the Press speaking:
isn't it unacceptable not to know what other people think when they don't want you to know?
Let's kill anyone who gave people such an option!
These people are a danger for democracy
Believe us, we know all about this kind of danger
I usda use pgp a lot but then it got confussing enough with who owned what and what the licenses were and everything that when gpg came out I gladly switched. I have to wonder how the US expects to remove old copies of pgp, gpg, and similar programs from the Net outside the US not to mention things like books and the knowledge in peoples heads. I think blaming people or trying to put the encryption genie back into the bottle is a bit misguided. We should let these emotions pass before we start passing a lot of laws. Lets not do anything we'll regret later. Lets punish terrorist and not programmers/pilots/etc for whats happened.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Nice to hear from you PZ.
n CX XWnJPSJSIDEQLryACfBk+1V/edllzC84A =uBHG
So how does a government restrict access to a back door?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.0
iQA/
NSA-OPS:ThEBacKDoORPaSsWorDIS:LETMEIN:bAjmy13le
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
Put backdoors on current cryptography programs, and you will ensure that only the criminals have real crypto. For more information, see The Code Book.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Dear Phil,
Do you think you could give the Slashdot crew a quick lesson in using crypto? From the way they've posted the last two missives from you, it's obvious they don't actually use PGP or GnuPG and have no clue how to transfer information in such a way that the digital signature remains valid.
I mean, providing a link to the original text file seems to be too hard for them, so maybe you could walk them through the procedure for verifying a document and then ask them to try and do that on their own postings, to see what they are doing to those of us who verify signatures when we see them?
I mean, what's the point of signing a message if no one can verify it? Not that I think Slashdot would lie, but for all we know they've been duped into posting something that isn't from the real Phil Zimmerman. Or maybe their stories are being tampered with-- it's happened to bigger fish recently (and Slashdot itself has been hacked before).
Thanks!
I do not have a signature
"FBI investigators had been able to locate hundreds of email communications, sent 30 to 45 days before the attack. Records had been obtained from internet service providers and from public libraries. The messages, in both English and Arabic, were sent within the US and internationally. They had been sent from personal computers or from public sites such as libraries. They used a variety of ISPs, including accounts on Hotmail.
According to the FBI, the conspirators had not used encryption or concealment methods. Once found, the emails could be openly read."
The Guardian Unlimited has a nice article which sums up a few views on encryption and the WTC attack: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361 ,558371,00.html. Basically it says the terrorists did not use strong crypto and had good reasons not to do so.
Terrorists are not going to use encryption with backdoors when non-backdoor encryption is already available. The only people that are going to use it are the law abiding people, the same people who are not going to be terrorists.
And besides, all of Osama's communications weren't through high-tech means but also low-tech. When the someone figures out how to trace one of Osamas high tech communications, he will just switch to a low tech form.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I just wrote this yesterday - it's quite appropriate to this thread.
Privacy and Encryption, Lose one, lose 'em all
> People seem to be assuming the Washington Post is part of some grand conspiracy to restrict the availability of strong cryptography.
No, it's not a conspiracy, but it is a symptom of a much deeper problem. The fact remains that the paper blatantly misrepresented Phil's opinions in order to further the current agenda of cracking down on civil liberties. This distortion is not a coincidence, but it's not deliberate either. In fact, it's scarier than that. People who are sufficiently indoctrinated hear what they want to.
We don't need any controlling evil mastermind to produce the appearance of a conspiracy. All we need is a set of implicit and unstated tendancies where most people do what they think ought to be done, and the mass moves inexhorably in a particular direction, irrespective of a few free thinkers trying to throw a spanner in the works. This group concensus serves the interest of those in power (the rich, via corporations, media - which is corporate owned, and politicians - who are also corporate owned), and pushes the rest of the population in that direction.
Mainstream media is even more laughably distorted than normal at the moment. Suddenly the media is full of convenient statistics "80% of US population favors back-doors in encryption". And what percentage of the US population has any idea what the hell that means ? What was the queston "Do you favor laws that make it harder for terrorists to communicate in private ?" or "Should it be illegal for people to try to stop others from monitoring their communication ?"
Corporations and politicians have a vested interest in eliminating free speach from the population. They don't want you talking to each other, they want you listening to them. They definitely don't want you saying stuff to each other without them being able to monitor it and punish you for saying stuff that makes them uncomfortable. The real reasons for the desire to restrict and monitor may not even be apparant to the "group mind", but everyone has a huge capacity for self-delusion.
The media is just as accurate about other stuff. They laud George Jr's "bravery" without a trace of irony, like the jester in the Holy Grail "When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled...." Meanwhile the cowardly terrorists were cowardly
giving their lives for their beliefs. Fanatical assholes, sure, but cowardly ?
The distortion is much worse than you think. The entire language is adjusted in a thoroughly Orwellian fashion. When people on our side die, the "terrorists" cause the "murder of innocent, men, women and children". Fine, this is accurate. However, when we do start beating up on Afghanistan. "Military commanders" will replace "terrorists" and "inevitable collateral damage during surgical strikes" will replace "bombing civilans". It's very difficult to reason about something when the terms are properly loaded.
The language molesters will be hard at work over the next few months. The funny thing is that when we hear blatant distortions in the other direction, (eg "The great satan") we laugh at the stupidity and talk about how these people have been brainwashed into believing all sorts of nonsense. Yeah, "they" hate us because they're jealous and they're victims of brainwashing and propoganda. Meanwhile, we're going to destroy civil liberties, escalate corporate welfare (through "defense" spending), slaughter innocent civilians and risk our own soldiers fighting people across the world who previously had no serious quarrel with us, because we're all well informed and logical.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
That "response" from Phil has the aura of a legal form letter around it. Hey Phil, did the lawyers from the Washington Post scare the shit out of you? It sure does look like it. You tempered your words and carefully chose them in such a manner that I question the origins of this "response".
C'mon big guy, did they make you sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) as well? Are you restricted from saying that they twisted your arm? C'mon Phil, what's the real story?
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
Guardian: How the plotters slipped US net
Credo quia impossibilis -- Tertullian
I think this is the same status like selling a hammar. One can use it to construct houses, cupboards, tables, hang up pictures on the wall, and a lot of other good and constructive things. Now there is a group of people who might use hammers to destroy windows, does the producer of the hammer have any guiltiness on the destroyed window?
Same was dynamite, Nobel also thought of the constructive things when inventing it, like mining etc. but there are also people that will use dynamite to blow up other things than rocks.
Personally I think different for things created only for pure destruction. Like rockets, to a limited degree some kind of guns etc.
But also there history made sometimes funny turns. Take the LASER in example, when this technology came up people only thought of them using as super longrange weapons, and got quite funding for this purpose. Now look today, LASERs are used for everything, from construction computers, correcting teeth and eyes, meassuring stars, etc. etc. but one application they failed miserable as weapons themselfs.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
There is something we all need to stop...
Somthing so vile that almost all terrorists, criminals, and other bad people use...
Somthing that is so easy to get ahold of that anyone can get them.
And that is... Pants! Yes, Pants! Just about every crime is commited by someone that is wearing pants! (unless you're in Scotland).
We need to stop the insanity by cutting off the supply of pants to the world. Heaven forbid that somone commits a crime becouse it was so easy to get some pants.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
Do you know what this **means**? They kidnapped Zimmerman and replaced him with a robot (Carnivore-enabled of course)!! I bet the Post and CIA are in some sort of wicked wicked collusion!! Fire up those mail bombers!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It doesn't mention anywhere in the news article about why the trains crashed.
It is stupid, childish and above all dangerous to just blame any accident or incident on 'Islamic extremists'.
Whay can't people look at the facts before pointing fingers anymore?
The article builds up to the end of the first paragraph to the "overwhelming feeling of guilt" part (the sad thing is, that a lot of people won't read any further, jumping to the conclusion, that even a reknown cryptanalyst is now against the use of strong cryptogrtaphy). This 'setting' overshadows the whole article.
Then the rest aof the article slowly comes around to Phils opinion, that strong crypto is still necessary, and that backdoors severely weaken security protocols including them (they just open up more possibilities of attack). The clear reasoning in that part of the article is inconsistent with the first paragraph, someone applying such reasoning is not "overwhelmed" with guilt.
Also anyone who jumped to aforementioned conclusion is in for a rollercoaster ride, when he reads on and is taken through a whole 180 before being let out of the article. So the whole piece isn't consistent in itself, and someone proofreading, let alone writing it should spot that with a little narrative experience.
I still think that the writer somehow let his own opinions on the matter guide his hand, maybe not even consciously. But i really wonder what picture of Phil Zimmerman that reporter must have created in his mind, to come up with someone overwhelmed with guilt and yet reasoning it all away.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
excuse my english, not a naitive speaker
a 10 year old boy, pulled from the wreckage, is saying that a man of arabic decent was waving a gun around in the front of the train
other witness says driver was thrown out of cockpit and door locked as arab forced train to go at high speeds on inner city track
we're lucky it didn't manage to hit the terminus
Robin, your defense of copy editors and headline writers is eloquent, but way-off IMO.
I have seen, too many times, bias creep its way into copy editing and (ESPECIALLY!) headline
writing decisions. Occasionally (see Slashdot's unfortunate coverage of Wired's "coverage" of the supposed "raid on e-gold" -- which would have been a fine story except that not only did it not happen, both Wired's headline writer and Slashdot's either didn't read the text of their own story or purposely chose to distort that text to make up a better headline) -- the facts be damned. I'm sure that competent copyeditors are always in short supply, but I'd think that even the INcompetent ones might read stories before slapping a headline on 'em and inviting my withering sarcasm.
What I'm disputing here is your "99%" estimate above. I'd say that AT LEAST 5% of mistakes are due to bias (not gonna get into whether there's media bias, or how various media outlets are biased, but we'd probably disagree on that, too). I have seen and informally studied headline & copy-editing errors for DECADES, and over the years the pattern of distortion has been more indicative of agendas than honest accidents in WAY more than 1% of cases. The mistakes AREN'T random (analysts at www.mrc.org and www.fair.org would probably both agree with me on that point, and they disagree on just-about everything).
Again, your eloquence is appreciated (especially by any copy-editors who are reading all this, and I'm sure their job sucks sometimes -- like all jobs can suck!) but your estimate is orders of magnitude off, IMO. Also, if incompetent headline writers really AREN'T anonymous cowards, then there's one over at Wired whose actual name I'd appreciate knowing -- so far all I've got is 'not Declan,' which (even with media-layoffs) doesn't really narrow things down too much, does it?
JMR
(Speaking ONLY for myself!)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
The difference is terminology implies that the terrorist's actions were targeted at innocent people, whereas the military actions will be targeted at the terrorists and their sponsors. Since this happens to be the truth (unless you can show some reason to believe that we're planning to attack civilian populations), I fail to see the problem.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
In the aftermath of the WTC disaster, there has been a lot of talk both here in europe and in the US of 'banning cryptography', or putting in backdoors so intelligence agencies can read encrypted stuff.
Isn't the very idea of banning cryptography just plain dumb? The people who might use cryptography for criminal activities are hardly going to respect the ban - they'll just carry on using it anyway.
Furthermore I believe that there are people in this world with a 'good' and non-criminal reason to need cryptography that cannot be decrypted by the security forces. It is widely believed to be true, not by nutty paranoids but by governments and industry leaders, that security forces of some countries (notably the USA, UK and France) use industrial espionage to aid their own companies when pitching for very large contracts. If the US (and/or UK) tries to get a global ban on cryptography or put back doors in, I think the rest of the world has good reason to tell them to get stuffed.
"...as the inventor of PGP, I was 'overwhelmed with feelings of guilt'" - Phillip Zimmerman
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
What good is freedom if you're dead?
I you feel like, go ahead and sacrifice yourself for me. I could care less about you.
While I'm not trying to advocate self-censorship, perhaps all of us (incl. Zimmerman and Bush) should be rather careful about how we use the terms "jihad" and "crusade" for a while.
While this use is perfectly safe, I think that if such terms are used merely for effect, while they still carry associations with their respective origins, there is a significant danger of being misunderstood.
(I'm speaking specifically about Bush's use of the word "crusade" to describe the upcoming war, but it goes for "jihad" too.)
Steve
>
Voltaire: God is dead.
God: Voltaire is dead!
posting ranting flames as AC.
From the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act:
The purpose of the legislation is to provide the President and the Department of Justice with the tools and resources necessary to disrupt, weaken, thwart, and eliminate the infrastructure of terrorist organizations, to prevent or thwart terrorist attacks, and to punish perpetrators of terrorist acts.
That sounds like a great idea, as long as it means eliminating things that are used for terrorist attacks only!
Using properitary software without a proper license is illegal. How many of us can honestly say that we have never used a pirated copy of anything? Not many.
So what would happen if strong crypto was made unavailiable/illegal? The ones that need strong crypto would still use strong crypto (including the terrorists (if they actually did)) and the only ones who wouldn't use strong crypto are normal people trying to live a normal life (but a less secure one now that crypto is insecure).
They can't stop people from using something, they can only make lives more difficult for us. And because the data they might be interested in would still not be encrypted the way they want, there is no point in the whole idea.
I hope the government would try to understand that before doing something they will regret later on (unless they use terror as an excuse for being able to monitor people for their own purposes).
The ACLU [aclu.org] has a place where you can send a form-fax to your senator or congressman urging them to make an informed decision about the laws regarding cryptography. I sent such a message to my elected officials in Washington; you should to. I can't for the life of me find the actual link for the page again, but it is there, somewhere. I will post it as a reply here.
Also, elsewhere on Slashdot, again I can't find the link again, there is a very well-written letter that the author said he would allow for use provided it was modified a little bit.
If we don't want something to happen, we need to make sure to tell our government about it. They are there to represent US, and if we don't want something, it shouldn't happen.
Robin, anyone could think of a lot better ways to cut "feelings of anger and grief" than "overwhelmed by guilt".
I don't think this was a deliberate attempt to slant the story, but it sure looks like an unconscious one. That is, the editor was in a hurry when reading the story, and interpreted it according to his expectations -- as guilt, not grief...
Didn't say anywhere he was an Islamic Militant though.
From Slashdot readers? I don't believe it!
I wish we had another couple hundred level-headed, knowledgeable, rational, principled people like Phil Zimmermann in this country. Especially now.
I tried to verify the PGP signature and got this msg:
*** PGP Signature Status: good
*** Signer: Philip R. Zimmermann (Invalid)
*** Signed: 9/24/2001 10:40:26 AM
*** Verified: 9/26/2001 10:52:58 AM
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
What's the "(Invalid)" by his name mean?
"We had no idea. If we had, we would have stuck to the bicycle trade, and saved countless lives!" declared Orville.
"Oh, get a life!" replied Wilbur, "We never said any of that. Typical yellow journalism."
[ReidNews]
I find it accurate that dictionary.com defines "jihad" as "crusade". Even if their theoretical definitions could be acceptable, their implementations meant death to masses of people.
Yet when Bush calls a "crusade" against terrorism, not everybody think of fanatical mass murder. Muslims do, though.
So I would recommend care when using these words under the current circumstances.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Washington, Sept. 27 (Slashdot) -- Today an anonymous editor at the Washington Post apologized for an error that appeared in the paper earlier last week. "The story about Phil Zimmermann's reaction to WTC911 was incorrect, and it was incorrect becasue of my selfish interest in selling more papers." The anonymous editor went on to say that she was "overwhelmed with guilt" and was considering resignation of her post and/or suicide. When asked for comment, Mr. Zimmermann would only say "I feel just terrible about this. It's all my fault."
Are there better things for the United States government to be doing than restricting crypto, spending lots of money on planes or anything else they are doing post NY.
A few statistics
A NY death toll figure 5,500 - CNN (maybe not the current one, but close enough)
Firearms deaths for 1997 10,369 - pcvp (again sorry for the old figures, newer ones have probably gone up)
now, twice as bad. why hasn't anything been done? As I see it its far easier to ban handguns than it is to ban crop dusters, put security guards on Aeroplanes, monitor trucks or declare war on a hidden man.
After all, every one of those weapons has a legitimate purpose. What alternative use does a handgun have?
So their article was good and fair? By whose standards?
If you consider media in general to be a whore who'd do anything to sell, well then maybe they've behaved comparably good and fair. IMHO that's a load of bullshit though, since just because most others are worse doesn't make the Post good. A phrase like "overwhelmed with guilt" is an exagerated, hyped-up eye catcher, that will leave a certain impression on the reader. An impression that's far from the truth. They know that very well which is why they knowingly use such a phrase on purpose, because it sells their stupid paper.
So why do you make excuses for them just because they've done comparably well and others would have completely bullshitted you? I just don't see why we should lower our standards of what's "good and fair" media just because that whole economy wrote off their souls long ago...
If the Internet gives you the freedom to tell the whole truth, unfiltered, straight-from-your-mouth, PGP signed and approved, why do you even bother with papers?
Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.
What hasn't been answered is WHY the article misquoted the overwhelming grief statement attributed to him.
catches up with everyone here in the "Land of the Free"
I wish the Politicos would STOP the GrandStanding and start dealing with REALITY and the ISSUES. Ashcroft is one of the WORST REACTIONARIES. He fully realizes that the extraordinary powers he is requesting WILL NEVER BE REVOKED.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Why are libraries keeping mail one month old?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I read the post often, I live in DC. Their editorial slant has gotten more and more extreme lately. I would have given them the benefit of the doubt a year ago. But they seemed hell-bent on becoming the mouthpiece of this administration even before this incident. Since? Even the unsigned editorials in the op-ed page have been rank and file in line with a certain ideology. Not one I share. They don't like people getting upset at their editorial slant? Maybe they should go back to unbiased reporting.
What is a question that contains the word "jihad" for no apparent reason?
(This was done with the intention of allowing eavesdroping of all comunications in France by the French authorities)
Since then they totally reversed their positions, up to the point of actually promoting the use of Open Source products because they can be checked for the existence of backdoors.
Why?
Or puting things in a different way:
Any nation that adopts a ban on cryptography runs the risk of placing their own companies at a competitive disadvantage to companies in other countries (the US is not the only country doing electronic surveilance) and scaring off foreign companies. Even the mandatory use of back doors in cryptography products has the same risk (eventualy somebody will discover the key that opens the back door, and from there onwards it's the same as if the comunications are unencrypted).
Plus, even if the US adopted laws against the use of cryptograpy or mandating back doors in cryptography products, i doubt very much that the French government would adopt it (specially after having sufered the efects of such a decision in the past). If in such situation the US tried a Trade Embargo against France, it would have to do so against the whole of the EC. You DON'T do a Trade Embargo against the second largest world market (it would be as idiotic as a Trade Embargo against the US)
I call it a Conspiracy of Common Cause.
It appears that after years of defending personal strong encryption and the rights of individuals to privacy, Mr Zimmerman has honed the ability to think through reasoned and balanced responses even under the most difficult of circumstances. My only hope is that governments do not use this terrible event to limit the privacy of individuals and clamp down on the freedoms of our society. We all know that the FBI, CIA, NSA, MI5 and others have always desired stronger snooping laws, ID card and all the other invasive powers. After all is said and done the attacks were a hideous example of mans violence against man - however we must remember that for 50+ years many countries from both east and west, have all invested vast sums to build and maintain stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We should be under no illusions, these are aimed at population centers across the globe and could be used without hesitation and without warning if our governments deem it necessary. Such is human nature.
... but a capitalist one. After all, the goal is profit.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
I never have points when I really need 'em... Filler text filler text filler text
I wonder who would object to the terrorists referring to a 'holy trinity of plane crashes' in america
They're fer keepin' the king of england outta yer face.
[i/][blockquote]If you can keep your head when all about you;
Are loosing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself wne all men doubt you;
But make allowances for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting;
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies;
Or being hated, don't giive way to hating'
And yet don't look too good, not talk too wise...
You will be a man my son.
-Rudyard Kipling
Thanks Phil for everything.
"Being Irish, he possessed an abiding sense of tragedy which sustained him through brief episodes of joy." -W. B.
We'll try to interview him (and other crypto experts) later, after passions die down a bit.
Translation: Now that everyone is noticing crypto, his interview fee is going through the roof. We'll chat after the sheep go back to sleep.
Talk about missing the point. If /. can't get to grips with signatures, what chance that non-geeks will? You didn't address the question, which is why post the signature block at all if it can't be verified?
Senator Judd Gregg (R - NH) wants to propose legislation that would require all cryptography to have standard 'backdoors'. I personally think that this is 'wrong-headed' ... but regardless of what I think, you can LET HIM KNOW PERSONALLY how you feel about his proposed legislation:
e /list_of_members/375/ )
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
(Taken from http://politics.yahoo.com/politics/congress/senat
Dan
I just ran the signature @ the bottom of the article through gpg and it doesn't seems to be a valid signature from Zimmermann. Either the public key he's using isn't on keyserver.pgp.com, or Zimmermann didn't really write this... That or he doesn't know how to use his own products :-)
If slash-dotters want to win the debate over strong crypto, they need to examine their own arguments and eliminate specious ones, lest those weak arguments be considered the best case for strong crypto.
1) Arguments equating unbreakable encryption with various tools or envelopes for private mail are specious. Envelopes are easily opened - and can be opened under a court order. Hammers, pants, airliners, and crypto do all have uses beyond terrorism - but the vast majority of the value of crypto could *theoretically* be retained with well managed (i.e. privately owned and run, paid for by crypto users) key escrow.
2) Terrorists using alternative unbreakable crypto is NOT an argument against key escrow. Requiring all communication using strong encryption to use key escrow has the flip side of making other forms of encrypted communication illegal. Discovery that a suspect is using illegal/unbreakable encryption would be enough to arrest them and detain them indefinitely for contempt of court if they failed to turn over the keys to their crypto.
To defeat any particular "government backdoor crypto scheme", you must
(a) show it damages recognized constitutional rights;
(b) show it could not work because...(?);
(c) get enough people using it and emotionally attached to the protection it provides, that they irrationally tell their law makers to buzz off - or engage in widespread civil disobedience once key escrow is mandated.
He made a statement that was an indirect slam against the Clinton Administration, but some right-wing shock jocks took it as an attack on the US military and Bush. Maher and his advertisers have been hammered with hate mail from the "Free Republic" types and Limbots ever since.
What Maher basically said was that it would be "cowardly" of us to lob cruise missiles at terrorist camps from 2000 miles away, like we did in 1998. He was calling the decision makers (i.e. Clinton) cowards, not the military.
But right-wing nuts reacted to the second-hand information they got from fellow wing-nuts like Mike Gallagher and went ballistic.
Very much the same way that slashdotters went ballistic on the WP.
Bill Maher has always been very pro-military on PI, but because he is impartial and sometimes takes the leftward position on some issues (drug war, death penalty), the conservatives in this country saw it as an opportunity for an attack. Never mind that he was implicitly criticizing their arch-enemy Clinton...he is sometimes liberal, so he must be taken off the air.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Let us now all have a week of careful meditation on the pain and suffering endured during the Greatest Dark Age of history, before all humans learned to wish only the Peace of God upon each other. Once we have all passed a week thinking upon these matters, our class will resume for a discussion of how similar misunderstandings and applications of the now-debunked "greater good" system of pseudoethics were also being perpetrated, to various degrees of horror, by governments and organizations outside the former United States of America.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
I was hoping that Phil would mention to us whether or not the Post had offered to print a correction on this. It's only one sentence (the part about feeling guilty) but it obviously seems to be a big one. Anyone know if they printed a correction?
do not read this line twice.
What does a newspaper do? It sells news papers. And a successful newspaper sells a lot of them. So how would a newpaper sell more? Make them more interesting but making the stories have more conflict in them. If you think the newspaper is just about the news, you are sadly mistaken. They have to do what ever they can to sell newspapers, and if it is make a story seem to have more conflict than it actully has, they do it.
The /. old guard has sure come out en masse to bash on everything. Just check the uids. A prime example of slashdot anti-bush peacenik ranting.
Therefore, I submit that we send this thread to hell, either with trolls or moderaters.
Jihad on you!
Oh, come on, what is this self-flagellation? We generally do have both self-confidence and passion, and both of those are good assets. And many people in technology try to live responsibly and try to help their neighbors.
Yes, we aren't necessarily "responsible members of a larger community", in the sense of playing the usual political games. But very few people are in a position to do so. If you want to become politically active yourself, you need lots of time, money, and photogenicity. Or, you may have even more money to pay others to do that for you.
The press is in for a large amount of deserved criticism: I see very few articles on technical and scientific subjects that don't contain either serious, substantial omissions or outright blunders. Publications like the NYT, the Post, and the WSJ have a lot of very self-absorbed, self-righteous journalists that use the prestige of their publications to push whatever agenda they may have . These journalists are hobnobbing with the rich and powerful, and are themselves in an income bracket, that they pretty much have lost touch with reality.
Zimmerman has to be nice to the Post. But, really, substantially misrepresenting his position is serious stuff. Isn't accuracy the first thing we should expect from a reputable paper?
I think the NYT, Post, and WSJ are useful not for their content, which is objectively of low quality and standards, and rather biased, but only for the influence they seem to have on US society. It's worth reading an article in those papers when it is widely cited; otherwise, it's best to ignore them. Get your news elsewhere--with the Internet you can.
There is something we all need to stop...
Somthing so vile that almost all terrorists, criminals, and other bad people use...
Somthing that is so easy to get ahold of that anyone can get them.
And that is... Pants! Yes, Pants! Just about every crime is commited by someone that is wearing pants! (unless you're in Scotland).
We need to stop the insanity by cutting off the supply of pants to the world. Heaven forbid that somone commits a crime becouse it was so easy to get some pants.
And that's why freedom-loving true blooded Americans are buying Utilikilts in record numbers. They're manufactured in the US right here in Seattle, where terrorists tried to blow up the Space Needle, and all the fine workers there love their Fremont neighborhood location.
So, buy American! Get rid of your pants - only terrorists would wear them!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
CNN recently reported finding some notes that the terrorists kept while planning the attacks and living in the United States:d ex.html
www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/27/inv.rules.engagement/in
One of the last comments was "The source said that a translator helped decipher the document, but some of it "was unintelligible." " I began to think of our use of the Navajo language to allow our Marines to communicate without fear of Japanese code breakers listening in on our plans. Here is a URL about the code talkers :
wae.com/webcat/navajos.htm
With the concern about the law adjustments that DOJ is proposing here is a question. Did those people use code talk against us?
NSA,CIA,and FBI could listen in all day but if they developed their own "code talk" similar to what the Navajos did during their training no amount of encryption regulation on this planet would keep someone from doing this. My understanding of what the Navajos did was to take common everyday words they used in their native language and assign them meening. From what I remember in reading about them they had all just finished Marine Boot camp and they got together as a group and decided what navajo words meant what Marine words. They never wrote anything down and did not have any non-native speakers help them develop the code talk.
What would prevent the terrorists from doing something similar in a cave in Afghanistan?
If this is found to be true would that not mean that all of the lawmakers scrambling for added pressures on encryption technologies are wrong?
Why are we trying to "...hold a rational conversation on [crypto] right now" anyway? We should be trying to understand our enemies' reasons for existance. If their quality of life was as good as ours, they wouldn't attack us (otherwise you would see more American terrorist attacks.) It's unfortunate that people think crypto is even part of the problem because there would still be terrorists even if there was no crypto. Even if the government outlaws crypto, people will still use it... I know I will.
Live wrong, impostor.
I'm guessing the proof fails because that line does not converge, and is ambiguous.
Female Prison Rape in NY
You know what? Calling, writing a letter to, faxing or emailing your representatives really does have an impact. Call them (you can get the number at congress.org), and when the staffer picks up the phone, say, calmly, that you would like to register an opinion, give your info, and thank them.
Yes, it goes onto a whiteboard with a check mark in the appropriate column. But that is how democracy works. Be calm, tell them your issue (one per call is best), and then do it again the next day.
If you did this every time you posted to slashdot it would definitely have an impact.
When people on our side die, the "terrorists" cause the "murder of innocent, men, women and children". Fine, this is accurate. However, when we do start beating up on Afghanistan. "Military commanders" will replace "terrorists" and "inevitable collateral damage during surgical strikes" will replace "bombing civilans". It's very difficult to reason about something when the terms are properly loaded.
it is difficult indeed(grin).
The side you are on is still all over the place. Use "undercover agents" instead of terrorists.
"Killed" instead of murdered. and what's the "innocent" about? Trying to raise support or something?
And "children". Could be, did not know. Is it confirmed? You're not doing that to add emotion?
An objective report is an objective report. An emotional reaction and judgement is another. You can have both, but in your "accurate description" one masquerades as another.
Fanatical assholes? Wait, don't tell me. You're from the other side, right?
I'm afraid I'm attacking sb on his examples now. Sorry. Maybe you're just trying to be nice(and i'm not). It proves your point though: hard to escape from the load of the words.
Slashdot is a blight to the Open Source community. There are so many
inappropriately over reactive readers that patrol this site. When an
issue that really needs mature advocates surfaces here on Slashdot, all
the scum here ruin the community's image in a big way right when it would
hurt the most. Especially when you are pointing this stupidity at a
journalist. Journalists should always be treated with respect. If you
do, and they are not on your side, you can stand a chance of changing
their views and bringing them onto your side. In the least they will be
more likely to publish a non-biased story. This same thing holds true
when communicating to a congressman or senator or other government
official. They are not likely to champion any of the community's causes
if the community comes off as a bunch of immature idiots.
The gunman's name was Friedrich Leibacher. Judging from his description in the article, he was a bit of a crank.
conspiracy is a strange word, but i like it.
I try to make some additional versions(just trying, building on earlier thoughts)
1. distributed conspiracy: There is no central committee that knows the exact truth and creates the myths. Instead there are many distributed committees. And when they communicate, some myths actually get accepted by other committees. So the committees have less myths than 'normal' people, but they're stuck with them as well.
2. open but demanding conspiracy : the easily accessible stories are the most distorted myths.
With effort you can get to less distorted myths
The truth is accessible in principle, but requires effort. Which most people don't have time for- or ability. So there is "Free Kuwait", "get rid of Saddam" and "avoid all oil getting controlled by one agent(that's how Powell described it)".
3. bottom up conspiracy: people on top are required to adapt the myths that are constructed at the bottom. That would be like , it's hard to escape from your culture
I make my money from media whoring. I was bitchslapped but I'm better now and don't want to offend my pimp.
to try to steal trade secrets from France. What would be go after -- the designs for a Peugot? or the source code for Mandrake?
its a simple case of imainative French monomania.
if piracy is listening to music
no one speaking arabic uses the word "jihad" to mean "struggle"
Yes - voting is the most powerful force in a democratic society, now I really wish that we lived in one. I'm not sure how to best describe the current state of the US. A schizoprenic oligarchy? Politics is very dominated by the incumbent parties. To be a candidate you need to be selected by the party, or be quite wealthy. Because of the dominance, The incumbent parties set the agenda for political discussion, focusing on very narrow, well tested "positions" that are determined to most likely swing middle ground voters. The actual differences in the current crops of well groomed, focus-group honed candidates is laughable.
Don't forget the experience of John McCain, who learned not to fight the system, the poster boy was chosen, even though he consistenly proved to have a much higher appeal with general voters, he couldn't swing the party stalwarts voting for the poster boy.
Any sort of revolution must be the absolute last resort in any political discussion. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned in how ultra conservative christians staged a grass-roots takeover of the republican party in the 80's.
Hopefully we will never give away the most important right the founding fathers gave us in fulfilling our duty, the means to protect ourselves from our government. (insert your favorite cliche here - but yes, for the record I am a licensed firearm owner) Maybe the government was right all along in classifying encryption as a munition, it certainly is a very effective tool in protecting us from the prying eyes and ears of the government.
Vote, educate your representatives, educate your neighbors, that's by far the best way we have of maintaining a free and open society!
Chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
Since the pros and cons have had a lot of attention, just adding ,organising, boiling down could conclude the parts a and b(b too?).
:) Because you got it through a decrypted mail.
Normally , to advance from there, you'd try out alternatives,different approaches, see where it takes you:
1. trade. there are many aspects of freedom of speech to protect. In general terms, part of these probably have been surrendered. Maybe there could be a deal "look, this here thing helps little in tracking terrorists, but we 'd like to have it back. We can switch. how hard do you want to take this encryption freedom from us".
If some agency says, "we want as much access as we can get. We'll see later what we can do with it", then they're being a bit inconsiderate.
If they have to trade for it, they have to think twice, is it really going to make a big difference? "You can pick 3 rights. Nothing else. the rest you have to give back"
2. Place a cost on decrypting. You want to decrypt, ok, costs you so much for each mail. You still want to do that? Which ones? there's a nice little hook to this.
3. reciprocity people-FBI. "Ok, you can get more access to people's data. But they have earlier/more access to what you do".
4. shift focus on what government is allowed to do with that info. Aah, you can't use this little bit of data , can you
Well, it's a first scan. raw material, nothing usable "as is". But already gives me inspiration for more
I've been hearing a lot lately about the upcoming restrictions that are set to be imposed on strong (or weak) encryption.
Here are my opinions on a few of them:
1) Backdoors
The terrorists aren't about to use your weak, intentionally flawed encryption. It is my personal belief that Bin Laden and many other terrorist groups will stick with their secure method that they've observed working successfully. You don't repair what isn't broken. bin Laden (as it is reported) used strong encryption embedded in images or a man with a note in a 'secret language.') The terrorists even used plain-text Hotmail, the text being something our government couldn't retrieve due to the fact Hotmail doesn't store deleted messages.
2) Complete restrictions on encryption
With these laws, we would no longer have the ability to conduct secure transactions, SSH sessions, etc. because our government is afraid (read: terrorism) of not being able to intercept and read the messages. It would most likely cripple e-commerce.
3) Restrictions on encryption for the public, but not for large companies (e.g. Microsoft) or organizations
Obviously, some large companies will have a say in the new laws because, well, they fund the politicians. Also, in the government's eyes, they have a decent reputation. Maybe Microsoft (or other "approved companies") will be allowed to implement 'government approved encryption.' I sincerely hope that Bush does not decide to treat countries that refuse to inject the backdoor into their encryption applications the same way as those who harbor terrorists.
4) Key Escrow
This idea is actually not so bad, but, most likely a terrorist will give the key to a friend; this individual will most likely elect to remain on his friend's side and "lose the key" if the police request it.
In Conclusion
Obviously, all four of these plans possess fundamental flaws, rendering each of them incapable of securing our nation from attack.
Bin Laden (et al) already know the methods that work and will most likely fail to change. The only change these laws will have is on the people: we'll feel even more insecure than we already do. This is exactly the effect that the terrorists desired to be had on our general population and our government. We can only hope that our government officials are intelligent enough to observe the flaws inherent in their plans...
"If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption."
Do you like German cars?
I want to make one thing clear: I'm not the typical "Slashbot" type that disagrees with everything that our government does. In fact, I support my government in almost everything they do, and I always support the brave men and women of our military. After all, our military is the only reason our nation has as much freedom as it does today.
I am certainly willing to let quite a few things slide in the wake of this terrible tragedy that has befallen our nation if it means we could prevent this from occuring a second time; my only request is that our plans are implemented intelligently, not out of fear and panic on behalf of our elected officials.
Do you like German cars?
In related news, the inventor of the boxcutter committed suicide today, after renouncing his invention and blaming himself for the terrorist attacks which it made possible. "It was all my fault," he said. "If I hadn't invented that stupid boxcutter then none of this would have happened."
Attorney General John Ashcroft agreed, as he proposed a new set of restrictions on boxcutters, including a provision that no boxcutter blade should be sharp enough to cut more than 2 mm through a stick of butter at 120 degrees F. The restrictions also include new penalties for those who commit crimes with boxcutters. "We need to cut down on boxcutter-crime," said Ashcroft. "This is a different world now, calling for a lower level of tolerance, like zero. This extra security may inconvenience us when we have to open a box, but that's the price of getting serious in this new war of fighting terrorism."
Meanwhile, critics decried the move, claiming that with the new restrictions, only federal law enforcement agencies will be able to open boxes. Meanwhile, according to a new Fox News poll, 80% of Americans support restrictions on boxcutters that would make them as blunt as plastic knives. 59% approve of restrictions on sales of boxcutters to people who look Arabic or who wear turbans. And 70% said that anyone who buys a boxcutter should have a hair and semen sample stored in a federal DNA database.
"How often do I ever have to open a box?" said Virginia Redneck, mother of two. "Only terrorists need to do that. This is one piece of my freedom that I am willing to give up for an extra meaningless measure of pretend safety."
Shares of companies which manufacture letter-openers lost 15-25% this afternoon after heavy trading.
not sure about Zimmerman, but here is a brief list of those who should be overwhelmed with a feeling of guilt:
1. Those responsible for making the american foreign policy. Seems like we are fighting with monsters we've created in a first place (bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Clearly this policy has no long-term strategic goals.
2. CIA and FBI. I'm not going to comment a lot on this item.
3. Those responsible for Airtravel security. Airport facilities at Logan are complitely inadequate. Apparently the rules of engagements with hijackers aren't adequate either. What amazes me is that the possibility of such events was considered a long time ago, and yet the old outdated rules were kept in place.
Now suddenly cryptography and Zimmerman are scapegoats. Give me a break.
Am I the only one who could care less about this guy and his troubles/apologies/guilt trips about some stupid article about PGP?
How is this even a story? Who cares about this?
I don't know if this was specifically with a French company or not, but i do see the huge business value of knowing beforehand the bids of your competitors in a closed biding contest.
And the imprecision about them and they is deliberate. The industry wants you to be maleable and stupid so they can sell more, and the people want to be able to be stupid and maleable because that is easier than being introspective and learned.
Phil underestimates the effect that one incorrect line of an interview can have on the reputation of a person whose character is already under attack, whether its because they are "helping terrorists keep secrets" or are "using their com-pyoo-ters to degrade the moral fiber of our country" or just from simply "being one of those no good computer geeks."
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.