Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Government Wants Public Encryption Software Removed
Anonymous Coward writes "Saw this one yesterday over at Hacker News Network. According to an article (German or English) published in Teleopolis, Janet Reno sent a letter last May to the German Federal Secretary of Justice outlining the need for the Wassanaar Nations to remove access to all encryption software from the internet as she believes such access renders the Wassanaar agreement impotent. The letter specifically mentions "public domain" encryption software. " Well, now I guess my life really will be an "open book".
Contrary to the obstructionist views of our elected officials, Americans want the freedom to communicate with anyone in the world without the fear of eavesdropping.
The only motivation stronger than the unreasonable lust for power in our executive branch is the unreasonable lust for interns.
When the American public understands what the government is trying to do, the government will be voted out of office. Until such time, I hope that the global community continues to sell fine encryption products to the United States, as we are in obvious need of them.
The products so far have been of very fine quality. Please send more!
Ya know. There is some sort of silly science that uses such tricks to filter the "intent" of the letter. Somehow one replaces the main terms with some words out-of-context. It allows to "emboss" the state of mind of the author. It is a rather silly game but sometimes quite effective.
But it is interesting to see this letter in this new "remake". First it shows that if this letter is a falsification, then it is a damn good one. All context looks relatively logic with the words replaced. Besides it shows the real concern of the author. It seems that is not worried too much about the dessimination of encryption itself. The author is damn worried about controlling the market of opaque.. uh encryption.
Good shot you've done
We need to fight this like we have never fought anything before. This issue is probably the most important issue that the online community has faced to date, and if we stand idly by, we will lose the most important freedoms we have. It is absolutely imperative that we use every available means to fight this. I'm going to do my part, and I challenge everyone here to do the same. Freedom taken away by force can be retreived by force, but freedom given away is lost forever.- ---------------
---------------------------------------
If you need to point-and-click to administer a machine,
You mean Reno, don't you? Madeleine Albright is the Secretary of State, Janet Reno is the Director of the FBI and the author of this letter (which is way out of bounds for the FBI)
Oops. My bad. However, Janet Reno is the Attorney General of the USA and is not the Director of FBI.
Firstly, when the head of a branch of a government sends an official letter to the head of a branch of a different government, it is never "no more than her opinion".
A-ah, so is this the official position of the US government? No? I didn't think so. Basically I think she was testing the waters. And there is nothing special about Germany, is there? Last time I looked I could download stuff just as easily from Holland, Israel, Russia, a bunch of country domains that I don't even know what they stand for, etc. etc.
it is part of a coordinated effort by the FBI to make strong encryption unavailable.
Again, you are probably thinking of the whole US law enforcement apparatus more than of FBI, but this is essentially correct. However his has been correct and widely known for a very long time.
I don't know if Reno wears panties
I dare not guess the sources of your information, but our friend Janet never struck me as a sexually adventurous type. Going pantiless around White House -- oh, my!
We've been seeing a lot of "I'm scared, take away my rights so I feel safer" lately, particularly in the US.
And we also saw a very strong backlash against attempts to do just that. Recall the Pentium ID fiasco, and that was quite a tame issue.
The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this letter, which was to put pressure on a German minister to do things in Germany.
It is fairly obvious that doing things in Germany and only in Germany is pretty pointless. This can work only if possession is criminalized, or if all the nations in the world agree.
It's also a hard battle to get the Bill of Rights to have something to do with this in the US. The courts are not consistant when they rule whether or not source code is protected speech. Binaries have never been protected by the Bill of Rights.
You miss the point. It's not my encryption software that is protected by the Bill of Rights, but rather my right to encrypt documents. IANAL but I think it falls under the searches and seizures amendment. Besides, encryption is a fairly vague term. If I write something in Klingon, is it encrypted? And you don't necessarily need computers -- a pencil, some paper, and a one-time pad work perfectly well. The court may order you to surrender your key, but there has never been any talk of outlawing encryption as such.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Sorry, my bad. Louis J. Freeh is the Director of the FBI. Janet Reno is the Attorney General, head of the US Department of Justice, the boss of Louis J. Freeh, and the author of the letter (well, one of her aides probably wrote it, but she signed it). Madeleine K. Albright is the Secretary of State and not the author of the letter.
This letter is still is a part of a long-term program by the DOJ and FBI to systematically remove the tools to protect our privacy in general, and encryption tools in particular.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Since when is Janet Reno an architect of foreign policy? Who gave her diplomatic status?
The US Ambassador to Germany needs to put her in line posthaste.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
***BZZZZZTTT!!!*** Thank you for playing, and don't forget to pick up your consolation prize.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Email all Senators!
2) Personal privacy is a vital aspect of personal freedom. This one also has implications for encryption.
3) Free will is the vehicle which drives humanity forward and keeps us together even through the toughest times. Note, however, that the right to free will does not include the right to infringe upon the free will or other rights of anyone else. This has implications on censorship as well as other issues. Note that, of course, free will includes free speech.
I dunno, but that sounds not all that far from the Libertarian position. Some people don't like the LP's position on a particular issue, where they feel the gov't should have more control. But if you think about the kind of system of goverment we have in the U.S., you realize that there will always be compromise, so unless the LP had 100% control of the gov't, and all of the office-holders were rabid platform-thumpers, it's not likely that the LP platform would be enacted unmodified.
If you look at it realistically, if the LP started gaining support, and became a serious force in the gov't, it would make it *much* harder for anti-freedom legislation of all types to pass. That's what I want, so I vote mostly a straight LP ticket.
I figure the authoritarians won't be going away anytime soon, so why not try to keep them in check?
--
You all are way too deep into this "Spy" buisness.... Step back and look at the big picture.
Someone needs to form the "General Public For Computer Privacy" campain or something. Seriously, the word needs to get out, and to the general public, in simple words, without code and jargon, asap.
If your mom could hit a button on her mail client that wraped up her email so that only her sister Betty could read it, she probably would... That's the goal of encription, even though it's not at a fully functional GUI level yet (and partly due to regulations).
Now, tell all those people what encription really means... Tell them that any nosy 16 year old with a part time job at an ISP can probably read all thier email at will. Tell them that encription is about privacy, not about computer hackers in dark rooms braking into the CIA. Your not going to be able to keep encription until the general public understands what it really is.
What are the legal implications? Does this mean that I can't email my friend in Denver if I use pgp in the future if the government has it's way? If that is the legal case, then, it could easily be made a legal case that I can't send him a letter in a sealed envlope with a stamp on it, because no one can "snoop" in the mail easily.
The PEOPLE need to know, so someone needs to tell them. Janet Reno can get on CNN and tell the world that she is makeing it a safer place. Unless someone else can stand up, orginize, and get press coverage, they will believe it. If this was a matter of "makeing the world a safer place" and she proposed allowing open inspection of anyones house without a search warrent, don't you think there would be a few people who could easily understand it and explain the implications to those who don't?
The REAL problem is, we are all just preaching to the choir here... Everyone agrees that we would like to be able to at least ATTEMPT to have a little privacy... But, can you really explain it in terms that your parents, your ministers, your school teachers, and your children can understand? That's where the effort should be focused.
The ban on encryption software could well be unconstitutional.
Forget free speech for a moment; this is another set of grounds. Consider that another amendment forbids illegal search and seizure. Encryption's whole purpose is to guard against such things. Therefore, it could be said that banning encryption is an infringement on Constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure. In fact, since Echelon has been proven to exist, that's exactly what the encryption ban is.
The primary purpose of law enforcement is to punish those who break the law (be it by removing them from society or imposing fines or other punishments), and it always has been. "Prevention" is only a secondary purpose, an one which has always been carried out only indirectly. Perhaps Janet Reno has forgotten this. I very much doubt that she intends to be the totalitarian dictator she seems to want to become. Then again, I also doubt that she's ever read Milton.
Bush declared the War On Drugs, which is when the US stopped being a free country.
Today's attempts at monitoring are simply extensions of the work that was begun there.
Folks, we are some of the only people who understand how bad this is. It is crucial that we fight this tooth and nail, because your Average Citizen just isn't going to get it unless we tell him or her.
The War on Drugs turned out to be a war on freedom. Know Your Customer, FIDNet and removal of encryption from the public domain are simply methods of locking that loss down permanently. You must already show your papers at checkpoints to travel from an airport. How much closer to Nazi Germany do you want to get?
Make no mistake: if encryption is outlawed, your children will be raised in bondage.
Once they have outlawed encryption, systems wizards (those evil "hacker people") are the next target.
Ok here we go once again: "It is a fake! No it is Eternal Truth!"
Please before stating such things give some argumentation and analysis.
Yes it is probable that the letter is a fake. But do we have any grounds to consider it this way? Well there is one point. The letter is relatively superficial about its subject. It may be called a letter not meaning too much above general considerations.
However the last paragraph remarks that this is only a letter of intent. The author just tries to recall its intention to continue a discussion that was left somewhere...
Besides the letter is rich in specific terms and presents an internal logic. Note that usually fakes intend to be quite silly on the whole context of the text. Most authors of the fake worry much more about "hot phrases" and $50 dollar words among cheap statemants and disregard how the whole thing would look like. Here we don't have such case. However this does not demonstrate that this is a fake.
There is one thing that may prove/deny a fake at certain extent. How public is the content of this text? By nearly 100% everyone knows about this. In one way or the other all this information has been mostly public. Some facts may be not so well known but that's a problem of the audience not the sources. So someone could have made a smart fake that would run very near DOJ activities. Only some salt makes it "hot" by the wording around "public domain". Well considering some later "backstage games", there is some data remarking DOJ's attempts to make a "last and final" landing exactly in that field. So the letter, by timing, context and external data fits well here.
So it is quite probable that this letter is not a fake at all. It is just a polite call over a powerful interlocutor to continue what DOJ has been doing recently: Try to put everyone in its bandwagon.
E-Commerce: Fine by us.
Us: That means SSL is dead, and passwords and credit cards will be sent in the plaintext.
Consumers: We won't shop the net anymore!
E-Commerce: Eeep! Hey, Feds, here's a big bag of money!
Gov't: Um, we suddenly have no problem with encryption.
Us: Yay!
(Heck, special interests work for most groups,
why not here?)
Seriously, to ban any encryption on the net is
nearly impossible. And again, are criminals
(the ones they are fighting against) going to care
if encryption software is legal or not?
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Guvf vf onq. V'ir whfg tbggra cnegf bs gur Fjrqvfu tbireazrag gb yvfgra gb gur nethzragf ba jul fbsgjner cngragf vf onq, naq abj V unir gb tb nsgre gurz nobhg rapelcgvba gbb? Bu jryy.
No way. Albright was basically saying "wouldn't it be nice if encryption wasn't available to non-government entities". This is no more than her opinion. Granted, her opinion carries some weight, but it's a faaaaaar way from actually enacting coordinated legislation that would prohibit private encryption.
So don't get your panties all bunched up. This is not going to happen for a very large set of reasons, starting with political climate and ending with the Bill of Rights (at least for Americans).
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I think you people are overreacting a bit here. Janet Reno never says that she wants to encourage the banning of all encryption software. What she is requesting is cooperation in enforcing the rules of the Wassenar Agreement on electronically distributed software, as well as software sold in stores, etc. She is not saying that they should ban all distribution of encryption (although she might like that, it is not what she says).
Granted, I am as against restrictions against cryptography as anyone, but if we go on a holy war of flammage on this one, we are going to look like illiterate morons. Reno is advocating that no exception to the export regulations be made for public domain and/or electronically distributed software.
If we are going to make strong encryption easily availible to everyone, we need to fight the battle as intelligent people, not as a bunch of cultish raving lunatics.
-Cheetah
That means easing export controls on computers and encryption products that can already be purchased on the open market.
But then he follows that up with:
At the same time, as the use of encryption programs increases, American law enforcement must always have the resources to stay ahead of the criminal use of that technology.
He just don't get it, folks. The only way to "stay ahead of the criminal use of that technology," even partially, is some kind of key escrow. And that will only work with law-abiding criminals who use legal encryption software. Ultimately, that is not the answer for people who live in a (nominally) free country.
I'm sticking with the Libertarian Party. They may not be perfect, but I agree with them a heck of a lot more often than I agree with any other party.
--
> Republicans believe in LESS government control.
What about them there ten commandments, hm? Thank you, but I would prefer a government that didn't put me away for having sex with my girlfriend and not in the missionary position.
They are all tired of the perks of office. They want the power of controlling every thought and action now. They claim it's to make us safer, but people fought and died and killed so that we would be safe from precisely this sort of thing.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Top 10 documents Janet Reno DOES still want encrypted:
DISCLAIMER: I'm making the following list all up. Please, government people, don't come do bad things to me. I'm just kidding. Really.
10) Secret love letters to Regis Philbin
9) Details of her high school post prom party, where she engaged in inappropriate relations with a llama,as written in a letter to a friend
8) All memoes regarding the "incident" where Ms. Reno accidentally left a pair of kneepads in the Oval Office
7) Memo condoning chinese water torture for Kevin Mitnick
6) Request card from PC Magazine placing an order for the book "Internet Access for Dummies"
5) logfiles from 75 Anonymous Coward "First Posts" to Slashdot, dated several hours after delivery of book mentioned above
4) Hotel receipts indicating preference for in-room hardcore pornography movies featuring men with three testicles
3) Letter from Al Gore thanking her for looking the other way
2) Letter from Bill Gates telling her "no, you have to push the start button in the lower left corner first"
1) All documentation related to failed top-secret cosmetic surgery experiements she was involved with in the seventies that went horribly, horribly wrong.
DISCLAIMER: I'm making the following list all up. Please, government people, don't come do bad things to me. I'm just kidding. Really.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
:)
9 U+0OehDWsnfST3/9
Hash: SHA1
Foo!
That's just totally evil. As a protest, this is signed using GnuPG - properly
GPL'd and everything
Restricting everyone's right to communicate in any fashion they like is
basically assuming everyone's guilty until proven innocent, which sucks.
~PigleT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjeh5wcACgkQh3MeQyZWueRh+wCeJfrfIVL
r+cAnj1Iwfg2WeMPV9tU0dng/5pRMBHD
=t61T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
The govt's new policies they introduced over the last week on encryption and net watching.... They really make me angry.
If they get their way, their internet spying would be the equivalent of opening and reading every letter I mail through USPS, and listening and recording every phone call, cell call, page, or fax I make.
Just because its easy for them to spy on my actions over the net doesn't make it right. The problem is the public at large is totally uneducated about this. If we explained that it is real similar to reading letters and listening to phone calls the public would coredump in their pants.
This is disgusting. Its clear to me that Reno and the govt really hates the public at large. Get rid of encryption on the net and you kill business on the net. Get rid of business on the net and ruin an important part of the future economy and our lives.
Wassenaar does allow for public domain encryption software to be freely distributed.
Reno wants the special clause allowing this to be removed.
You know, I've been considering the platforms for various parties, and there really isn't one that could be considered "moderate." All of them are too extreme in some manner or another. On one end, of course, there's the Green party, Libertarians, and anarchists. On the other you have Communists, totalitarians, reactionaries, and the religious right.
Even Democrats and Republicans are extreme, though not as extreme as most of the others. And that "reform party" is just as bad.
Even in other nations, the parties are the same general way. Sure, they go by different names, but no political party has its head screwed on quite right. It's just a matter os differences in where the extremities occur.
What we need is a "Common-Sense Party," for lack of a better term. Or perhaps a better name would be "Technologist Party." Something which places strong values on personal freedom and works to ensure it while striking a real balance between personal freedom and governmental authority (in other words, a balance which is even between the two, rather than tipped too far towards either end, which all the political parties I've seen are). I think it's a possibility.
Major issues include:
1) The free (as in unimpeded, not as in gratis) flow of information is crucial to today's society in a world where knowledge is rapidly becoming more valuable than gold. This has implications for encryption, education, and the media (particularly censorship). Free-speech issues are also included here.
2) Personal privacy is a vital aspect of personal freedom. This one also has implications for encryption.
3) Free will is the vehicle which drives humanity forward and keeps us together even through the toughest times. Note, however, that the right to free will does not include the right to infringe upon the free will or other rights of anyone else. This has implications on censorship as well as other issues. Note that, of course, free will includes free speech.
Anyone else care to expand on this? Comments? Anything?
Don't you realize that Janet only wants to "protect the children?" The only problem with Janet is that her idea of "protecting" someone is to douse them with CS cut with methylene chloride, then burn them to death.
Sometimes I think this is all part of some grand conspiracy, sometimes I have to chalk it up to stupidity on a grand scale. I lean towards "stupidity" on this one--anyone who honestly believes that crypto can be stopped, or even regulated, is braindead.
slashdot broke my sig
A Government can only keep secrets from its own people.
~ ^~~~^~~^~
A measure of how dis-satisfied people are with their government, is...
1) The level of armament of the police
2) The need for a government to "know what its people are up to."
lecture...
The movie "Untouchables" makes a very good point about how the police were representing the federal government, but everyone was *in essence* supporting a different government.
Even then, Al Capone's ledger book was encrypted. Why did Al Capone feel like he couldn't trust the Government with a knowledge of his buisness doings? Becuase the government was so corrupt that they were ready to squash such privacy for its own preservation. Remember how he even payrolled government officials? He was certainly an active supporter of the federal government.
Now obviously that is a little tongue in cheek, but it does point out how this issue is not very resolvable in a debate. Yet the solution is very clear. What keeps Open source so secure? Because it is open, and people can look for daggers so easily.
But even more than that there is participation. People are looking for daggers in software they want to use. Ever dream of working for the Air Force, just to find out if something is happening in Area 51? Ever want to work for the UN to get in on all the secrets that are passed there?
Why do we feel that we need to conceal what we are doing from the government? Why does the Government feel it needs to conceal from us? I think more participation is the best way to expose what is going on to sunlight, and as Learned Hand once said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~
The thought of our government regulating privacy policy makes about as much sense as Bill Clinton regulating the National Blow Job Policy. They would get it all and we'd get none. Scary.
-------------------------------------------------
Not everything you read on the internet is true. There's no proof that Janet Reno wrote the letter, other than the "reliable source, no really, trust us" note at the end.
It is becoming increasingly evident that we must do something to stop the proliferation of personal automobiles.
It is not our intent to halt an individual's transportation rights, there already exists several means of transportation for individuals, such as the horse.
Personal automobiles are a threat to the public security, as they allow terrorists to rapidly move about with concealed packages (such as heavy weapons or even a thermonuclear bomb).
As you can see, this threat cannot be allowed to continue. It is time to purge our country of these risky machines!
It is becoming increasingly evident that we must do something to stop the proliferation of personal encryption.
It is not our intent to halt an individual's communication rights, there already exists several means of communication for individuals, such as the text.
Personal encryption programs are a threat to the public security, as they allow terrorists to rapidly discuss obscured plans (such as for heavy weapons or even a thermonuclear bomb).
As you can see, this threat cannot be allowed to continue. It is time to purge our country of these risky programs!
Uh, hello, anyone home? The car is out of the garage, everybody knows how to build one, you can't stuff it back in the garage!
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
How far do you think most Free Software would be without electronic distribution.
Quite the competative advantage to unethical companies, you can only get crypto on a nice shiny CD, probaly binary only full of backdoors, and there won't be ANYTHING you can do about it
When did the US gov stop being for the people?
Remember the Boston Tea Party? The colonists were under incredibly strict and unhuman laws that stripped them of their rights. What did they do? Chucked a bunch of crates of tea out into the ocean, even though it was blatantly illegal.
I believe there comes a point when citizens must take the Constitution at its face value, as it was meant to be, and take measures against senseless government totalitarianism.
Now, this doesn't mean scalping copies of Microsoft stuff--people are trying to make a valid living off that--but if encryption software can only be found on underground warez sites, then that's where we'll all have to go.
We have the right to privacy, to free speech, and anonymity. Do what you can, where you can, but just don't let this slide.
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...
I've always likened the need for encryption to our present use of curtains. Here's a little spin to demonstrate why.
s/encryption/curtains/g;
s/cryptography/opaque window/g;
s/software/fabric/g;
s/cryptographic/woven/g;
s/strength/opacity/g;
s/electronic/low-cost/g;
s/Internet/counter/g;
s/intangible/privacy-enabling/g;
Dear Minister Däubler-Gmelin:
I wish to thank you and your Government for you efforts to achieve a fair resolution regarding multilateral export controls on curtains products at the recent Wassenaar plenary session on December 2-3, 1998. While no Nation, including the United States, was completely satisfied, I think we made significant progress toward a regime that can support the interests of national security and public safety in the face of the challenges posed by the increasing use of curtains internationally. Given the divergent opaque window policies that the Wassenaar Nations have supported in the past, and the continuing controversy that opaque window policy continues to generate, that 33 Nations managed to find common ground augurs well for our future ability to find solutions that satisfy the divergent needs of privacy, low-cost commerce, national security, and public safety.
Much work remains to be done. In particular, I believe we must soon address the risks posed by low-cost distribution of curtains fabric. Although the Wassenaar Nations have now reached agreement to control the distribution of mass market curtains fabric of certain woven opacity, some Wassenaar Nations continue not to control curtains fabric that is distributed over the counter, either because the fabric is in the "public domain" or because those Nations do not control distribution of privacy-enabling items. While I recognize that this issue is controversial, unless we address this situation, use of the counter to distribute curtains products will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial.
I look forward to our continuing discussions on these and other issues. And again, thank you for your past and future considerations of these issues.
Sincerely, Janet Reno
--
...you get the idea.
--The more you know, the less you know.
But in the letter she says:
Very different.
I would bet that the latter more accuratly shows the policy of the DOJ.
Is not strong and trusted encryption software built by the open and free flow of ideas. How strong would the encryption be that is available to everyone but the governments if there was no electronic distribution?
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
kayaking
Check out ompages.com. I've worked on some papers that explain what the problem is and how to fix it.
People are signing up to help everday. Mirrors, applications, web services are coming, and they are going to be free, anonymous, and no advertisements allowed.
This is an open source project so we need help.
Whether you are a hacker, engineer, web designer, writer, are just curious, there is a something to be done.
As you all can tell from this article, the US government is moving at top speed to halt computer security for the masses.
Since the US government is acting fast, so must the rest of us. Don't just mumble and grumble about the loss of your rights, use your skills to claim ownership of your rights.
Only you can prevent totalitarianism. You must act, this war is being fought online and without national borders. Wherever you live, the time is now to counteract censorship, government monitoring and control.
This is not a paranoid delusion; if you think it is, then remain as you are and accept that consequences that are indeed mounting.
I will post messages like this on /. for every article that relates to limits on crypto. Flame me if you want. I can take it....
Ruby Ridge happened in the summer of 1992, BEFORE Clinton was elected and BEFORE Reno was appointed.
In fact Reno was appointed DURING the Waco standoff, so you can blame ruby Ridge and the initial incredibly boneheaded paramilitary-assult-with-cameras-in-tow on George Bush and his appointees. Bush of course was a Republican and for some reason alot people seem to think that the Republicans care more about civil rights than the other lot. People who point to Waco & Ruby Ridge as examples of Clinton & Reno's disregard for civil rights are blaming THE WRONG PEOPLE Blame the GOP if you must blame a political party. The only "civil right" that the GOP care about more than the Democrats is the 2nd amendment. After all its every American's right to defend himself against bad stock market investemnts with a hand gun.
Everyone who knows the inners of networks knows perfectly how easy is to eavesdrop any unsecured communication. Every *NIX that respects himself have at least one tool that permits such thing. Some have even a whole artillery inside. Take trinux (www.trinux.org) for example.
However it seems that US DOJ is completely blind to such things. Their will for power is so big that they simply ignore technical specifities, customer interests, public opinion and now diplomatic relations. It is simply amazing how a government body, caring for the justice of its citizens, not only violates their rights but also interferes in the rights of citizens of other countries. DOJ is becoming a danger not only to the national interests of the United States of America but also the whole World.
Apart of this there are two points that turn DOJ activities into a danger of a much broader sense. First is the field they intend to dominate. Encryption is not only an activity but also a scientific and technological field. No one knows what may become tomorrow if they go with this one. They may not only turn Encryption and Signals Encoding scientific fields into a theoretical and technological swamp. Tomorrow someone may well try to shrink the information contained in other fields, turning all Science and Technology into a stalinist dogma. Let us remember that all the crazyness that happenned in USSR during Stalin had started almost the same way. First Economics suffered the first blow. The reasons were quite parallel, in some sense, to DOJ's type of argumentation. Public dessimation of wrong theories about Economy could undermine the hard effort of building the new socialist relationships in the production fields. People would be teached "capitalist" selfish ideas on how to grab others.
All this ended with a weird world where even Darwin was considered a demagogue. Even the founder of modern rocketry in Russia, Korolev had to pass some years in the GULAG. While all these Stalin crazy years didn't last enough to destroy Russian scientific institutes, a lot of its madness echoes even today. Besides, this steel fist on Science fueled a whole set of paranormal extortionists, religious sectants, and criminals of the boo-boo Science, who made their life out of the ignorance of the masses. This was particularly seen on the end of USSR.
But DOJ does not end here. They are starting to act as much as the organs of internal affairs of some totalitarian countries. They now determine what is good or bad for their people. It seems that they are not satisfied to have just The Law behind them. They are excited to get The Truth also.