Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:2376 alt.privacy:574 sci.crypt:4655 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!IRO.UMontreal.CA!matrox!altitude!elevia!alain From: alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.crypt Subject: Re: Denise Caruso reports on new anti-encryption bill: S.618 Message-ID: <1991May8.185016.11073@elevia.UUCP> Date: 8 May 91 18:50:16 GMT References: <17597@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: The W.A.Simon Wild Life Fund Lines: 30 In <17597@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Denise Caruso wrote a great piece for her "Inside Technology" column of the >Sunday, 5 May 1991, SF Examiner, on page E-14. It concerns the attempts >to outlaw encryption and why that is a bad idea. She claims that there >is a second bill that has had anti-encryption stuff quietly slipped into it >last week by the FBI: S.618, "The Violent Crime Control Act of 1991". >I'll quote her closing paragraph to encourage you to get and read it all: > "I want crime to stop. I want terrorism to stop. But do we > want to secure the networks or not? I have *never* seen > evidence that power in the hands of government authority > didn't corrupt. I have never heard of a compromise-able > network that didn't get compromised. With increasing reliance > on computer-based networks, back doors for law enforcement (or > whoever else figures it out) make me afraid. I don't think > they're a good idea." Considering that with a few rare exceptions, terrorists have been financed, trained, sheltered, and given logistical support, by one government or another, I shudder at the idea of giving any political power the keys to my backdoor. NOT MY BACKDOOR, or NMB is the operative response. ps - See: The Economist - May 4-10 1991 - Computers and Privacy - page 21 for a superb analysis of this and many other related issues. >John Gilmore -- William "Alain" Simon UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP