US Policy Would Allow Government Access to Any Email

An anonymous reader writes "National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is currently helping to draft a new Cyber-Security Policy that could make the debate over warrantless wiretaps seem like a petty squabble. The new policy would allow the government to access to the content of any email, file transfer, or web search."

Comments

Re:Really?

[gnick]

And what is it going to do about my encryption keys? If things go really badly, they could pass legislation similar to the UK's that makes it illegal to withhold encryption keys and passwords if you're hit with a warrant. I'm sure if anyone has tried the "I forgot" defense yet.

Encrypt your email

[gillbates]

Seriously. There are already libraries such as FLTK and QT for the graphic front end. For the back end, you could use XySSL, OpenSSL, or even GNU GPG.

I'm about 20 hours into an encryption client, and I've already got people using it. I initially wanted to use GPG, but realized that most technophobes won't go for a command line application. So I pulled out FLUID (the FLTK design utility) and had a prototype working within hours.

Today, there's no excuse for not encrypting your email. I realize that you may think you have Constitutional rights in this regard, but GW & Co. have the guns, the taxpayer financing, and even the (unsolicited!) cooperation of the major network carriers. It doesn't matter what you think the Constitution says if you can't even get a trial. You're on your own from here on out.

So why encrypt, even if you've nothing to hide? Well, simple, really. Why let the government violate the 4th ammendment with impunity? If you encrypt your email, the government can't perform secret, mass surveillance. Sure, they can pound on your door, and even demand the key. You might even have to give it to them. But in them doing so, you've achieved three key goals:

1. In order to get the key from you, they'll have to contact you. So they can't secretly eavesdrop on your communications.
2. Should you refuse the key, they will have to convince a judge to order you to divulge it - thus, your 4th ammendment rights are preserved - the judge will require probable cause before issuing the order.
3. In demanding the key, the issue will move from the administrative branch to the judicial branch. You want to force the government into the courtroom so that your other rights are not trampled as well.

Encryption is highly Constitutional (TM) software. It keeps terrorists from eavesdropping on our conversations, knowing our whereabouts, and stealing our valuable intellectual property. If the government can't read my email, neither can the terrorists.

Be patriotic. Support the Constitution. Encrypt everything.

Re:Really?

[FrozenGeek]

So, suppose Alice and Bob use asymmetric crypto to encrypt the email (and not just to share a symmetric session key but to actually encrypt the plain text). Yes, I know it's horribly inefficient, but cpu cycles are cheap and most email is only a few KB long, so it's not that horrific a thought. If No Such Agency hassles Alice over an encrypted email she sent to Bob, she says that she used Bob's public key and cannot decrypt it - only Bob can do so. Assuming Bob lives somewhere that No Such Agency can hassle him, he hands them his "private key" that decrypts the email to rubbish and says "Sorry, Alice must have screwed up the encryption". Worst case scenario, both Bob and Alice are screwed. Best case, No Such Agency is very unhappy.