Slashdot Mirror
Crypto Advocate Under Investigation by FBI
Seth Scali writes "Cryptography advocate and former member of the IETF staff William Simpson is under investigation by the FBI for treason. Apparently, he is accused of 'challenging authorities and laws that may impinge upon his activities'. " As you would imagine, the case involves cryptography and the DOJ/FBI has some other strong feelings about crypto folks.
IIRC, Phil Zimmermann was "under investigation" for some time, after the release of PGP; after they finally decided he wasn't going to be intimidated, and the bad publicity, like any publicity, was just spreading PGP faster, they dropped the whole thing.....
--
-=DaveHowe=-
Wow. First post. Not that it matters to me. Maybe I'll be moderated period for once. ;P
Seriously, this doesn't surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me if I was under investigation for being a privacy advocate, critical of government policies against citizens, and a PGP user. I am for IPSec, I *use* a form of IPSec. I don't believe in the right of the gov't to blatantly ignore the constitution in the 'interests of national security.'
National security. You sure hear that term a lot, don't you? Now, I have to think. What do they really mean by national? Obviously not national, as national would mean not only the gov't, but every citizen and legal resident of the United States of America. Nothing is done in the interest of National security; it's done in the interests of government security. The government maintains it's power by asserting it's power over it's people. Sometimes fairly and justly - hate crimes, Roe vs. Wade, hate crime legislation. Other times, unjustly and basically illegally - anti-crypto, censorship, harassment. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the FBI has repeatedly abused it's power. The same for the NSA. They both have multi-billion dollar 'black' budgets - budgets that do not have to be accounted for. They can spend the money from that budgeanything without having to account for a single penny , or state what it is spent on.
Don't think the government will stop there, though. It wouldn't surpriese me if this advocate became the next Kevin Mitnick. The next step, logically, is for the FBI to file secret evidence and lock him up in a federal prison, and deny him access to computers for the rest of his life. And don't doubt that the FBI will at the least try to. Why wouldn't they? It's his strongest voice. That's what he's scaring them with now.
Fight oppression. Fight back. Promote your own privacy. National security should mean NATIONAL security - not government security. Use PGP. Don't keep passwords written down. Refuse illegal search and seizure. Complain to the appropriate authorities about harassment. You have rights in this country, unless you're too damn scared to fight for them. I don't know about any of you, but I plan to fight for my rights if I have to, and I'll let no person, company, or government take away the rights that the Gods gave me at birth and that the United States Constitution garauntees me in writing and law.
--RISCy Business
your company here.
shelby != ford
[begin transmission] ...OK, so if after all that, they still don't wanna build in support for CALEA into the network policies, I know! We'll just have anyone who disagrees executed for treason until the only people left alive are our supporters, and then support for CALEA will be unanimous!
Phase 1: Send up a trial balloon...
Phase 2: Bully the vendors...
Phase [CENSORED]:
[end transmission]
It's a joke, a joke you bastards! A jo
NO CARRIER
Back in 1991, the FBI was still probably not clear on the concept that they would be laughed out of court if they tried to interfere with international standards bodies such as the IETF --- the U.S. Government has recognized the IETF as an international standards body. Some of the quotes from the FOIA'ed file make it clear that this was the focus of their investigation:
"(blacked out)stated that he believes the PPP is legal technology. However, if the government is attempting to restrict the dissemination of authentication protocols, he believes it is too late. It is like locking the barn after the horse has escaped (per (balcked out)).... (more blacked out stuff) .... In summary, (blacked out) does not believe Simpson has engaged in breaking United States export laws regarding the export of cryptographic devices or is interested in violating such laws at the behest of a foreign power."
I very much doubt that the FBI would be wasting time with such investigations today, and certainly I would doubt that any such case would be allowed come to court --- if they tried, you can be sure that there would be plenty of support from the net, and there's a very good chance they would lose the case. Much of the current force of the export control regulations come from Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. If they let a case come to trial, there's a very good chance they could lose on first amendment grounds, and that's the last thing they would want.
Now while I am as staunch a defender of free speech as anyone, William Simpson was under investigation for about nine months because he was in a position to potentially break U.S. export laws against exportation of strong encryption. While I may not like the fact that we have such laws, Simpson could have helped to include "unexportably" strong encryption in an internet standard that would surely be exported.
Note: I do not support restrictions on encryption, nor to I support mandated back doors. I do not support unwarrented investigations of U.S. citizens (or any other people for that matter.) However, I also do not support getting hysterical over a six-year old dead issue just because the subject has had his Freedom of Information Act request fufilled.
the supplied article on NTSecurity seems to be complete heresay. Like NTsecurity heard from ZDTV which heard from IETF. If it were straighter from the horses mouth it could be the basis for an intellegent conversation. But too many details are excluded to be able to formulate an opinion on what's occuring.
For instance, is he being investigated because of his suggestion for the inclusion of encryption in PPP, or have other things occured? That detail seems to be skimmed over and then forgotten. Like: "he advocated encryption and then he got investigated for treason..."
Did he, through his advocay, publish PGP or other software on his website for download to non-US citizens? If yes, then, well, as stupid as everyone thinks it is, he would have broken the law. Note, that that's pure speculation. But I honestly don't our government would waste the resources to investigate someone for treason because of a suggestion! Let's be a little more realistic, please. There have to be other factors at work...
And if there are, we need to know what they are before we go "oh, evil FBI cracks down on innocent ciziten joe...". It's too easy to jump to a conclusion - one way or the other - without presentation of all the facts.
If my very slight hypothesis is correct, and there were other factors at work aside from his suggestion, then i'll go on to say that if you don't like a law, you can't just go break it and say it's okay because it's a dumb law. You need to get it changed. Vote. Voice yourself. But don't try to be a martyr unless you're sure it will work right.