[MUD-Dev] Wild west (was Guilds & Politics)

[Bryce]

On Wed, 24 Dec 1997, Stephen Zepp wrote:

> Michael Hohensee wrote:
> > 
> > Stephen Zepp wrote:
> > >
> > > I had to jump in here a sec:
> > >
> > > 3) Your comment about the FBI is a two-edged sword.  The FBI ( along with a few other agencies ) is responsible for
> > > counter-industrial espionage, in addition to counter-intelligence within the borders of the US.  The "clipper" chip, and
> > > other concepts are very misunderstood by the public:  Primarily, the _concept_ ( there are a lot of ideas for
> > > implementation ) is not to be able to monitor _anything_.  Just like legal wiretapping, reasonable cause will be
> > > required, and a warrant issued to obtain the encryption keys ( in most proposals held by the Department of Standards, or
> > > some such, in any case a completely non-justice oriented gov't. department ).  They're not gonna ever get free reign, at
> > > least not legally.
> > >
> > 
> > Ahh, but the definition of "legal" is fluid, is it not?  New laws can be
> > made at any time.  Furthermore, and even more frightening, is the fact
> > that many government agencies operate *illegally*.  A petty (but real)
> > example is the dept. of moter vehicles in N.H.  By law, state residents
> > can choose whether or not to give their social security number when they
> > get their license (I've seen the statute).  Yet the dept. operates as if
> > it were mandatory, and refuses to give you you license without it.
> > 
> > That's why I, and many other people, fear giving government new
> > abilities.  Regardless of how many good intentions go with it, it *will*
> > be misused.
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> Well, I do not want to sound like a proponent Big Brother, but at the same time, national and corperate security is a
> very important issue.  Hell, the clipper concept may just become a life saver in the court system--consider:
> 
>   We already know that people can edit graphical images and produce fully lifelike images on film or still pictures,
>   same can be done with sound,
>   in the corporate world ( where the majority of "clipper" issues will reside, along with the drug community ), the
> criminals already have the resources to manipulate any evidence they might need to produce in a court of law.
> 
> 
>   I may be doomsaying here, but I give us no more than 5 years before the US court system makes still and video
> photography inadmissable as evidence, in addition to tape recordings, becuase of the ability to mainpulate them.  Now,
> since your "clipper key" will be stored with an agency unaccessable by you or others without a court order, and it's
> extremely difficult to hack a key, and you would need to be able to hack a key to change any of the ( recorded ) data,
> then that's at least one set of still valid legal evidence ( I think! :) )...just chattin here, but being an Air Force
> pilot who worked Special Operations for 6 years, you would be incredibly surprised just how many criminals are _already_
> using encrypted data transmission to avoid law enforcement agencies.
> 
> The other point would be:
> 
>   The FBI, NSA, and any other monitoring agencies out there are so overwhelmed by the amount of traffic they _have_ to
> process each day that there just isn't any way that they are gonna go get Joe Blow's clipper key so they can spy on him,
> unless their is enough suspicion to.  And hell, with the clipper chip, your getting hardware encoded encryption for
> _anything_ you want...why complain? :)
> 
> I don't like Big Brother ( even tho I work for him :P ), and I don't like people snoopin over my stuff.  However, I feel
> the threat of real criminals using the current technology to make themselves immune from prosecution is very real, very
> large, and extremely significant.  For the most part, any gov't. is just not gonna go snoopin through your packets like
> a bored admin.
> 
> Zoran
> 
> 

I have to say that I don't even care if the gov't _can_ be trusted with
the ability to "wiretap" encrypted communications. I just don't like the
idea of _anyone_ telling me what algorithms I can and cannot implement,
software or hardware. As a mathematics major, I am used to pure
abstractions being public domain completely (which they generally are.)
Restricting the usage of such knowledge not only enrages me, but also
strikes me as pathetically pointless. 

Just my flame in a thread that has already absorbed too much attention.,
-Bryce Howell