|
|
| E-Terror in America |
|
Posted by FoM on September 21, 2001 at 09:21:20 PT By Joel Miller Source: WorldNetDaily 
The do-something-or-else attitude of legislators in the wake of the unprecedented terrorist attacks in America have caused lawmakers to err on the side of haste and misinformation, rather than caution. "Whenever a new form of evil extrudes into American society, demands for Internet regulation seem to arrive faster than a greyhound on crack," wrote Declan McCullagh for the April 27, 1999, Wired News. He was responding to the Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colo., after which critics of the unregulated Net began calling for hulking speed bumps on the Infobahn. The Internet, you'll recall, was hyped up as a major part of the lives of the two shooters. They supposedly learned to make bombs from recipes found online. The same sort of demonization of computer encryption is happening in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It's been in the works for a while, of course. "We are very concerned … about the encryption situation, particularly as it relates to fighting crime and fighting terrorism," then-FBI Director Louis Freeh told the Senate Judiciary committee in September 1998. "Not just bin Laden, but many other people who work against us in the area of terrorism, are becoming sophisticated enough to equip themselves with encryption devices." Freeh added: "We believe that an unrestricted proliferation of products without any kind of court access and law enforcement access, will harm us, and make the fight against terrorism much more difficult." The word must have finally settled into the ears of Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., because it took him two years to respond. But, there's nothing like a few thousand casualties and leveled buildings to spur a politician into action. While the dust still hung in the New York air, Gregg announced on the Senate floor that the U.S. needs to ban any encryption product that does not allow for government backdoors, the keys to enter and decipher encoded messages. Trouble is, Gregg may be jumping on the back of the wrong camel. "If I was a terrorist, the last thing I would do is use encryption," said Brian Gladman, a British computer scientist, in a New Scientist report. "We need to find out whether encryption was used in these events at all." From what the FBI is saying, it wasn't. A G-man official in Washington, D.C., told reporters Tuesday that "the hijackers and their known associates used public computers, such as those in libraries, as well as their own personal computers to communicate," according to a Reuters story. Able to get e-mails from the terrorists that date back as far as 45 days, the official said, "They did use (the Net) and they used it well.'' The hundreds of e-mail communiqués were in English and Arabic and were not limited to the U.S. More importantly, the official said, "The hijackers did not use encryption techniques." Gladman's refusal to jump the gun on blaming encryption is testament to his wisdom. Gregg should be so lucky. Convinced that government possessing the keys to encryption will help to prevent future terrorist attacks, Gregg and Co. ignore one vital fact of life – criminals break the law. That's what they do. Telling terrorists to play the same rules that law-abiding citizens do is naive, if not completely nuts. Software can be pirated and altered – computer code is fungible and can be changed to fit the needs of those using it. As Wayne Crews, director of technology policy at the Cato Institute, said about the difficulty in regulating computer programming, "You can't monopolize or clamp down on ones and zeros." Terrorists won't comply with Gregg's demands, and neither will many programmers and companies outside the U.S. If terrorists are using cryptography to mask communications, it is foolish to think a mere law will ebb its use. "Crypto is out there," computer security expert Peter G. Neumann of SRI International Computer Science Laboratory told me. "There's not much governments of the world can do about it." It's no different than gun control. Banning or restricting guns does not stop outlaws from using them. Criminals don't care about laws. Britain's universal crackdowns on firearms in recent years has, in fact, exacerbated its crime problem. Ditto for Australia. Expect to see much the same sort of thing with cryptography. Our right to use it in commerce, in protecting our identity and bank accounts online and more will suffer, while lawbreakers will continue to benefit, restrictions or no. If Gregg gets his way, say adios to free and secure communications for law-abiding citizens. That will be for terrorists only. Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web) Related Articles & Web Sites: CATO Institute Civil Liberties and the Hill Police Powers Broader Than Announced Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #2 posted by 420toker on September 21, 2001 at 12:42:54 PT |
| back door that you can leave open for one and not for all. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by greenfox on September 21, 2001 at 11:44:14 PT |
| Is, of course, the CENSORSHIP! [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |