FC: John Gilmore on CSIS' Lewis anti-encryption, privacy efforts

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sat Sep 21 2002 - 08:46:37 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Ashcroft releases fact sheet on new FBI investigative guidelines"

    Previous Politech message:
    
    "CSIS' James Lewis replies to Politech on WH cybersecurity report"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-04008.html
    
    -Declan
    
    ---
    
    Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:42:15 -0700
    From: John Gilmore <gnuat_private>
    To: declanat_private, gnuat_private
    Cc: JALewisat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: CSIS' James Lewis replies to Politech on WH cybersecurity 
    report
    In-reply-to: <5.1.1.6.0.20020920073027.01a88cb0at_private>
    
    Jim Lewis said:
     > Declan: I actually think the National Strategy is very strong, but I
     > question the heavy reliance on voluntary action and self-regulation.
    
    Don't forget that Jim Lewis is the guy who headed the Bureau of Export
    Administration sub-department that wrote and enforced the
    unconstitutional regulations that prevented people from building
    good security into their computer and communications products.
    
    Perhaps he has learned just how much cyber security his previous
    regime's censorship cost the US (and world society).  It took a
    six-year court case, Bernstein v. US, that cost us (private sector
    security & privacy activists) millions of dollars of work, to get him
    to stop.  So that we in the private sector could merely be LEGALLY
    ABLE to build decent security into our products, without being thrown
    in prison for our efforts.  The case is still going on, because the
    last regulations Jim promulgated before decamping to CSIS are STILL
    torturous and unconstitutional.  See http://www.eff.org/bernstein/ and
    http://cr.yp.to/export.html.
    
    Hugh Daniel and I personally appealed a particular export decision, in
    a room full of Commerce Dept lawyers and him.  Jim had decided that it
    was illegal for Hugh to ship software for AUTHENTICATION -- proving
    who you are, or that you are authentic -- because somebody, someday,
    maybe, could potentially modify that software to hide information.
    (Better Authentication is much of what we need to improve cyber
    security.)  Jim's decision flew in the face of the explicit
    regulations, that for many years had exempted Authentication software
    from the controls that he was enforcing.  We argued to them that if
    they made totally arbitrary decisions that ignored the printed
    regulations, nobody would even bother to submit crypto products to
    them -- we might as well ask for foregiveness as permission, if both
    are arbitrary.  I think the phrase "Rule of Law" was uttered at least
    once.  They ultimately ignored us, and (months later) told us we
    couldn't export it anyway.  Hugh and I were trying to make the Domain
    Name System secure, an effort that has still never been accomplished,
    thanks to the opposition from Jim, and from a few other people with
    their own crazy axes to grind.
    
    Building even the half-decent level of computer security we have today
    took thousands of other peoples' work too.  Phil Zimmermann's
    courageous activism, in the face of Jim's attempt to indict him on
    Federal crimes.  Millions spent on lobbying by commercial
    firms who merely wanted to ship secure computer products.  The
    Netscape crew put strong crypto into their product, navigating the
    perilous export bureacracy so that we U.S. customers could actually
    get a copy of it, thus bringing us secure web transactions instead of
    the bogus security that prevails to this day in telephony (including
    cellular) and wireless (including 802.11 WiFi).  Many foreigners, from
    Australia to Finland and everywhere in between, contributed working
    crypto that has become the backbone of security on the Internet.  All
    of this happened DESPITE Mr. Lewis's fervent opposition.
    
    [Of course, the reason Jim Lewis opposed all of this good security is
    because his collaborators in the NSA and FBI wanted the physical
    capability to wiretap *everyone* illegally.  In the last year even the
    secret FISA wiretap court has thrown up its hands, tossed aside its
    20+ years of secrecy, and announced, "These guys are totally blowing
    the Constitution."  See
    http://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy/FISA_feature.html and
    http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/20020919_eff_FISCR.html ]
    
    I wouldn't put much faith in what Mr. Lewis has to say on the topic of
    cyber security.  He knows how to drive us, with the biggest whips
    possible, in the exact wrong direction.
    
    	John Gilmore
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
    CNET Radio 9:40 am ET weekdays: http://cnet.com/broadband/0-7227152.html
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Sep 21 2002 - 09:14:59 PDT