>From Reuters "Human rights groups favor strong encryption abroad", Aug 01 1997: [...] Swift and inexpensive communications over the Internet ''promise to destroy the ability of abusive regimes to silence their people, hide their atrocities and blockade the truth,'' said Dinah PoKempner, deputy general counsel for the group Human Rights Watch. ``Encryption offers the most fundamental protection to those who seek to bring abuses to light in these circumstances,'' she added at a briefing for congressional staff. [... Patrick Ball:] ``Human rights monitoring is always defined by repressive regimes as a threat to national security.'' [...] Two bills overtly addressing the topic of cryptography are currenting pending, one in the Senate and one on the House of Reps. The Senate bill is known as S.909, and was authored (nominally) by senator John McCain. Conrad Burns's Pro-CODE (Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era) bill, which sincerely liberalized export restrictions on cryptographically capable software available domestically on an open basis, was discarded in committee (Commerce, Science & Transportation) at the last minute as committee chairman McCain introduced what was passed off as a "compromise bill," but is in fact the most draconian crypto-related bill to be formally introduced for consideration to date. McCain's bill parrotts Clinton's established agenda of restrictive crypto policy, but introduces a new twist which can be interpreted to give the President the power to unilaterally declare certain technologies and techniques mandatory, forbidden, or otherwise regulated, for reasons of "national security." In an open letter to Sen. McCain, Barbara Simons (chair, Public Policy Committee of ACM) and Paul Kostek (vice chair, US Activities Board, IEEE) expressed their concerns (July 3, 1997): The [leading national organizations officially represented herein] note with considerable dismay the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee's recent approval of S. 909, the "Secure Public Networks Act." [...] we believe that the "Secure Public Networks Act," as approved by the Committee, leads U.S. encryption policy in the wrong direction. The proposed bill stands in opposition to the scientific and professional opinions of many experts who believe that national security and public safety will be weakened by the mandated introduction of constrained or recoverable-key encryption. [...] The only bright spot in this tour of nightmares is a bill in the House of Reps, HR695 ("SAFE"), which is the House equivalent of the discarded Pro-CODE bill. After a "full court press" (an en masse display of testimonial disinformation in committee) by the law enforcement and intelligence communities failed to sway determined International Relations committee members, the bill was approved and passed on for consideration by the Commerce, National Security, and Intelligence committees. Members of the National Security committee have already offered public assurances that they will gut and neuter the bill. Co-sponsorship of the unviolated bill is massive, and the only hope for passage is if the Rules committee allows amendments proffered by the subsequent committees to stand as separable components. Otherwise, the all-too-familiar parliamentary poison pill tactic will successfully kill SAFE also. President Clinton has vowed to veto the uncorrupted bill. >From The Last Word 7/29/97 http://members.iglou.com/bathroom, "DON'T LET CONGRESS STEAL YOUR SCANNER" The formerly sane Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) has hammered another sharp nail into the coffin of the America that we once knew, introducing H.R. 1964, a bill that promotes police-state tyranny in a big way. Markey's legislation, which is headed straight for congressional and presidential approval unless we raise some violent hell, will ban new police radio scanners from picking up almost every frequency above 30 megahertz. [...] The bill will also ban radios from being equipped with decoders that convert digital transmissions to meaningful audio. [...] >From Usenet, by noring@netcom.com, "--> CYBER-ALERT!!! H.R. 2281 (WIPO Compliance Bill) Submitted" [...] This bill, among other things, could even be legally interpretted by the courts to require the outlawing of any home-based digital recording devices: audio, video, and even some computer components, such as CD recorders! Or, it would require the courts to specify the technology of such recorders. [...] the penalties contemplated for violating H.R. 2281, even in the privacy of one's home with no financial intent in mind, are similar to drug-trafficking and some forms of murder. [...] H.R. 2281's ramifications far exceed its intent (which on the surface is good) -- like the CDA was good-intentioned but implemented horribly. And of course, the Administration is backing this bill (they originated the wording) [...] [the following by jnoble@dgsys.com] [...] It could impact encryption. "Circumvention" is defined as "to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work." (What does this mean for cryptanalysts?) It also restricts removing "copyright management information" that includes titles, author's name, and copyright notice. Violators would be subject to civil penalties or criminal prosecution. If you "circumvent" protection or remove copyright info "for purposes of private financial gain," you'll face up to a $1,000,000 fine and 10 years in Federal prison. I note that the act of "time shifting," i.e. recording a TV show with a VCR for later viewing, probably exposes the operator to criminal prosecution with similar potential penalties. I do not yet have the full text of the bill so I cannot say for sure. Recall the universal health care program that President and Hillary Clinton attempted to have enacted in the early days of Mr. Clinton's Administration. This program was abjectly and unapologetically socialist, and sought to build an infrastructure wherein only those whose "papers are in order" have access to medicine. It sought to build an exhaustive centralized database rich with individual biometric data, and effectively predicated an individual's access to medicine upon that individual's submission to this database. I will not greatly detail the manner in which anti-drug, anti-gun, and anti-sex hysteria (fomented by political, religious, and economic interests) have allowed the federal government, under the Clinton Administration and under many prior Administrations, to gut to an unprecedented degree the legally inalienable rights to liberty and property which are cornerstones of the American ethos and legal foundation. Inflicted by local and state police, the ATF, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, and other such agencies, this abuse and corruption is starkly obvious and starkly criminal. Drugs and sex are regulated and confined because they are immediately appetite-driven, and so are perfectly suited components of a reward-punishment framework to encourage conformity and obedience. Drugs are particularly regulated, and particular classes of drugs prohibited completely, because they are highly effective at giving the individual a point of view that he has not before considered - in particular, realizing that he has been chumped by his society, particularly by its corporations and governments. Observe furthermore that it is in the interests of the existing illegal drug manufacturers and distributors to keep the existing drug regulations intact, since a liberalization would bring a sure end to their fortunes. Guns are marginalized because an armed individual has the independent means of self-protection, and so his reliance on a standing domestic army of armed police is greatly diminished. An armed citizen ceases to be a pawn. A disarmed citizen cannot help but be a pawn. (After Reuter, "Lawmakers Want to Put 'God' in Constitution", 22 Jul 1997) Rep Ernest Istook (D-OK) and other House members seek to add to the Constitution a clause or article reading roughly "Congress shall make no law respecting [...] the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience." By introducing the amendment, of course, Congress is making a formal statement prejudicial to the people's freedom of religion, since it does not admit of the desire of many Americans to be free *from* religion. The wording these lawmakers have chosen is indubitably prejudicial, and inexhorably leads to the conclusion that those who do not acknowledge God are in some way without conscience, and that conscience is something which is "commanded by one in authority" (after Webster's Dictionary). The Digital Telephony bill, introduced by President Bush at the behest of the FBI, and signed into law by President Clinton, includes a provision whereby the FBI can require common carriers to provide eavesdropping capability sufficient to monitor every call in the nation over the course of a minute or two by switching from one call to another, and simultaneously monitor and record 1% of the simultaneous call capacity of the system (amounting to substantially more than 1% of actual calls connected at any given moment). Implementation of this requirement has been mired in legal and technical debate since the bill was passed. The requirement is, in inevitable implication, starkly beyond the threshhold which runs afoul of the Constitutionally guaranteed "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches [...]" The Communications Act of 1996, which President Clinton signed into law, has proven to be abhorrent and disastrous in a variety of ways. Diversity of the airwaves, and particularly, diversity in FM (VHF) radio broadcast, has plummeted precipitously, as large capital investors have amassed hundreds of radio stations under one controlling managerial structure, something they would have been unable to do without the Act. This is not in the public interest according to any rational, defensible definition. Regarding the Public Interest Standard, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt said in a speech: "Either our rules actually require something -- and something unknowable -- of broadcasters, in which case they should be rejected as constitutionally intolerable. Or they actually require nothing of broadcasters, in which case they are a meaningless hoax on the American public. In fact, the latter statement describes our rules [...]" The result of the Act is that the mass media, and therefore the means of free speech without which democracy is meaningless, is in the hands of an oligarchy of corporate monoliths with far firmer grip than they could have achieved without the Act. This grip continues to tighten. The "CDA" ("Communications Decency Act"), another component of the Communications Act of 1996, criminalized speech on the Usenet and in other electronic forums which is protected according to the First Amendment interpretive precedent of the Supreme Court. In fact, it is easier to run afoul of the CDA's restrictions than to run afoul of standing restrictions on what can be broadcast over the public airwaves. A doctor providing medical information in a publically accessible electronic forum about menstruation, intercourse, childbirth, masturbation, abortion, or even hemorrhoids, could be sentenced to a lengthy prison term under the CDA. The law was found unconstitutional, an outcome that did not surprise President Clinton, who publically expressed his view that the CDA is unconstitutional before proceeding to sign the Act into law. It is unclear how the Act passed Constitutional muster given that, the year after its enactment, a component of it was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The purpose of the CDA was not to "protect the interests of children," but to stifle the unruly individualism and very real freedom of speech enjoyed on the Internet. The Internet is the only existing arena of broadly accessible, swift, one-to-many communications, and as such is the last bastion of the means of democracy and freedom of thought. Since the terminal defeat of the CDA some weeks ago, the Clinton Administration has been actively encouraging the implementation of voluntary rating systems. The degree to which these rating systems can be expected to continue to be voluntary is negligeable. As a sort of denouement, I present for consideration a few of Clinton's words on the subject of volunteerism. Reuter, "Clinton urges Americans to volunteer" 26 Jul 1997 [...] ``We want to spark a renewed sense of obligation, a new sense of duty, and a new season of service all across our nation,'' Clinton said. >from Webster's Dictionary ob.li.ga.tion \.a:b-l*-'ga--sh*n\ n [...] 2a1: an obligating factor that binds one to a course of action 2a2: the power in such a factor 2b: a bond with a condition annexed and a penalty for nonfulfillment du.ty \'d(y)u:t-e-\ n [...] 1: conduct due to parents and superiors [...] 3a: a moral or legal obligation 3b: the force of moral obligation 4: TAX 5a1: the work done by a machine under given conditions ser.vice \'s*r-v*s\ n [ME, fr. OF, fr. L servitium condition of a slave, body of slaves, fr. servus slave] President Clinton is a criminal, a traitor, a socialist, and a fascist. He is an embarrassment to the United States of America, and one of the instruments whereby it has been rendered a nation of petty apathetic apologists. His policies and agenda present an immediate and dire threat to the security of the American economy, quality of life, ethos, and legal Constitution. He has systematically and almost categorically sought to undermine the Bill of Rights, part of a document he has sworn under formal oath to uphold. He is a strong candidate for swift impeachment and conviction. The same can be said of many legislators, and many state employees in general, though their influence on policy, on an individual basis, is substantially smaller. Americans are suffering from a pandemic of apathy, suspicion, dread, and emotional and ethical emptiness, and the time for change is now. Alarmingly, the changes being contemplated by the President and many in the legislatures turn America into a totalitarian, ideologically constraining police state. These people must be ejected from their offices. They operate under and rely on the assumption that Americans are in an individual and collective stupor. Only by rousing themselves from this stupor can Americans halt this long march of horrors. A hint to the skeptical: a "strong economy" does not necessarily make for a happy healthy people. The legislation outlined above is the manifestation of a conspiracy, consisting of strategic members of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, and strategic members of the international corporate community, to undermine the constitutionally and ethically inalienable rights of Americans, for the purpose of amassing power and wealth. I repeat, more starkly: a vast conspiracy has been formed at the highest levels of state, which seeks to undermine the U.S. Constitution, with accomplices at the highest levels of trans-national corporations.