Feature: US Govt & Invasion of Privacy

Dave Gudeman has submitted a feature on the subject of Invasion of Privacy. Specifically its talking about the recent govt plans to allow the govt permission to have backdoors into encryption applications, and in general just do all sorts of stuff that will make your blood boil (or maybe its just me because I'm halfway through Cryptonomicon:Neal you Rock) The following was written by Slashdot reader Dave Gudeman The US Government and Invasion of Privacy by Dave Gudeman Have you read about the recent US Justice Dept. proposal for Congress to give law enforcement permission to sneak into people's homes and businesses to sabotage their encryption programs? If not at take a look. I hope that you will be as frightened and infuriated as I was. And that you will also write your congress people to tell them how you feel about it. I think turning down this proposal is not enough. The justice deptartment people who proposed it and who presented it to Congress should be fired and should never be allowed to work in law enforcement again. Letting people like that work in law enforcement is like letting pedophiles work in nursery schools. It's criminally irresponsible.

Maybe you are not concerned about this because you never expect to come under investigation. I don't either. I've never engaged in any network activity that is even on the fringes of legality. But I probably have and will correspond with people who are possible investigation targets. And the proposed legislation allows the government to sneak into _my_ home and sabotage _my_ encryption programs if the person I'm corresponding with is too hard to get to.

But that's not really the main point. The main point is that there are people in the US government who are worried about the fact that Americans are learning how to better protect their privacy using computer technology. They want to make sure they (the government) always have the ability, with a court order of course, to find out what you are up to. Is this such a bad thing? Shouldn't the government have broad investigative powers to help fight crime?

Yes. I think they should. I'm not a privacy nut or an anarchist. I'm not generally opposed to law enforcement or to legal searches or wire taps. I'm even toward the conservative side on some issues. For example I think court decisions that prevent the prosecution from presenting evidence against dangerous criminals just because of the way it was obtained are heinous. But, I'm completely opposed to any laws that limit the right of people to seek privacy in any way they want.

Let me ask what you think of the following scenarios: A lock company invents a new non-pickable lock. If you lose the key, the only way to get through the door is by removing the lock. The federal justice department is concerned that drug dealers and child molesters will use these locks to prevent law enforcement from sneaking in and bugging their homes. So they get Congress to pass a law that if you use one of these new locks, you have to keep a key on file at your local police station, to be used by court order whenever the government needs to sneak into your home.

Not chilling enough? How about a law that requires you to keep video cameras constantly running in your home with a feed to the local police station. The police are only allowed to monitor the camera with a court order. Maybe they want to find out if you are smoking funny-looking cigarettes or if you are reading _The Anarchist's Cookbook_ (which, by the way, isn't very good) or if you are planning anti-abortion demonstrations.

Is that outrageous? But that is essentially what the justice department wants to do with encryption. They want to make sure that they can read anyone's email without that person's knowledge, by requiring all strong encryption to come with a special key that is kept in the possession of a law enforcement agency. Anything you tell someone else in private, encrypted email could be used against you in court. Don't tell Grandma "I had to spank Johnie today because he won't quit biting his little sister" because someone may arrest you for child abuse.

The government tells us this is to stop "drug dealers" and "child molesters". What they don't mention is that it can also be used against drug users (who may themselves be more victim than criminal), harmless collectors of erotica (you don't always know what you are getting until it is downloaded, and even if you delete it immediately, you will never be able to prove that), tax protesters (the US government has a long and sordid history of violating the civil rights of tax protesters), drug legalization advocates (who are often also drug users), second amendment advocates (who might own illegal stuff), and anyone else who is involved activities the government wants to stamp out.

You think it's OK for the government to go after those people with whatever means possible? Congratulations, you are a part of the majority. People in the solid majority don't have to worry too much about government persecution. Are you sure it will always be that way? Fifteen years ago, cigarette smokers never dreamed that one day they would be social pariahs, that their suppliers would be under massive attack and that they would be forced to constantly struggle with legal barriers to engage in their habit. Are you a drinker? You think that prohibition could never make a come-back in this country? Are you religious? You think the constitution will protect you from the growing anti-religious sentiment in this country? It didn't protect blacks in the early part of this century, and it doesn't protect gun owners and tax protesters today. Do you like to drive fast? Have you heard the growing noises about "road rage" and noticed that all these new police being funded by the federal government to "fight crime" are out in patrol cars with radar guns? You never know when the majority will suddenly turn into rabid haters of _you_ and the government will suddenly be after _you_.