FC: Phil Zimmermann: "No regrets" about developing PGP

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Fri Sep 28 2001 - 09:40:47 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: ICANN tries to preserve Net-stability against terrorist attacks"

    Previous Politech message:
    
    "PGP author Phil Zimmermann under fire for terrorist crypto use?"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-02548.html
    
    ----- Forwarded message from Sandy Sandfort <sandfortat_private> -----
    
    From: "Sandy Sandfort" <sandfortat_private>
    Subject: No Regrets About Developing PGP
    To: "Cypherpunks" <cypherpunksat_private>
    Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 07:59:50 -0700
    
    C'punks,
    
    Phil Zimmermann asked me to post this.  He would like it freely
    disseminated, so feel free to post it wherever you wish.
    
    
     S a n d y
    
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1
    
    No Regrets About Developing PGP
    
    The Friday September 21st Washington Post carried an article by
    Ariana Cha that I feel misrepresents my views on the role of PGP
    encryption software in the September 11th terrorist attacks.  She
    interviewed me on Monday September 17th, and we talked about how I
    felt about the possibility that the terrorists might have used PGP in
    planning their attack.  The article states that as the inventor of
    PGP, I was "overwhelmed with feelings of guilt".  I never implied
    that in the interview, and specifically went out of my way to
    emphasize to her that that was not the case, and made her repeat back
    to me this point so that she would not get it wrong in the article.
    This misrepresentation is serious, because it implies that
    under the duress of terrorism I have changed my principles on the
    importance of cryptography for protecting privacy and civil liberties
    in the information age.
    
    Because of the political sensitivity of how my views were to be
    expressed, Ms. Cha read to me most of the article by phone before she
    submitted it to her editors, and the article had no such statement or
    implication when she read it to me.  The article that appeared in the
    Post was significantly shorter than the original, and had the
    abovementioned crucial change in wording.  I can only speculate that
    her editors must have taken some inappropriate liberties in
    abbreviating my feelings to such an inaccurate soundbite.
    
    In the interview six days after the attack, we talked about the fact
    that I had cried over the heartbreaking tragedy, as everyone else
    did.  But the tears were not because of guilt over the fact that I
    developed PGP, they were over the human tragedy of it all.  I also
    told her about some hate mail I received that blamed me for
    developing a technology that could be used by terrorists.  I told her
    that I felt bad about the possibility of terrorists using PGP, but
    that I also felt that this was outweighed by the fact that PGP was a
    tool for human rights around the world, which was my original intent
    in developing it ten years ago.  It appears that this nuance of
    reasoning was lost on someone at the Washington Post.  I imagine this
    may be caused by this newspaper's staff being stretched to their
    limits last week.
    
    In these emotional times, we in the crypto community find ourselves
    having to defend our technology from well-intentioned but misguided
    efforts by politicians to impose new regulations on the use of strong
    cryptography.  I do not want to give ammunition to these efforts by
    appearing to cave in on my principles.  I think the article correctly
    showed that I'm not an ideologue when faced with a tragedy of this
    magnitude.  Did I re-examine my principles in the wake of this
    tragedy?  Of course I did.  But the outcome of this re-examination
    was the same as it was during the years of public debate, that strong
    cryptography does more good for a democratic society than harm, even
    if it can be used by terrorists.  Read my lips: I have no regrets
    about developing PGP.
    
    The question of whether strong cryptography should be restricted by
    the government was debated all through the 1990's.  This debate had
    the participation of the White House, the NSA, the FBI, the courts,
    the Congress, the computer industry, civilian academia, and the
    press.  This debate fully took into account the question of
    terrorists using strong crypto, and in fact, that was one of the core
    issues of the debate.  Nonetheless, society's collective decision
    (over the FBI's objections) was that on the whole, we would be better
    off with strong crypto, unencumbered with government back doors.  The
    export controls were lifted and no domestic controls were imposed.  I
    feel this was a good decision, because we took the time and had such
    broad expert participation.  Under the present emotional pressure, if
    we make a rash decision to reverse such a careful decision, it will
    only lead to terrible mistakes that will not only hurt our democracy,
    but will also increase the vulnerability of our national information
    infrastructure.
    
    PGP users should rest assured that I would still not acquiesce to any
    back doors in PGP.
    
    It is noteworthy that I had only received a single piece of hate mail
    on this subject.  Because of all the press interviews I was dealing
    with, I did not have time to quietly compose a carefully worded reply
    to the hate mail, so I did not send a reply at all.  After the
    article
    appeared, I received hundreds of supportive emails, flooding in at
    two
    or three per minute on the day of the article.
    
    I have always enjoyed good relations with the press over the past
    decade, especially with the Washington Post.  I'm sure they will get
    it right next time.
    
    The article in question appears at
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1234-2001Sep20.html
    
    
     -Philip Zimmermann
     24 September 2001
     (This letter may be widely circulated)
    
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 7.0.3
    
    iQA/AwUBO69F2sdGNjmy13leEQIn+QCg2DjDeyibtRe61tUSplSAobdzAqEAoOMF
    ir3lRc4c1D/0Mmmv/JtP/E73
    =HmRO
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    
    ----- End forwarded message -----
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 10:04:38 PDT