From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:06:10 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: What we are Fighting
In-Reply-To: <199809062012.QAA00594@panix7.panix.com>
Message-ID: <v03130307b218f992deb9@[209.66.100.36]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




>> Subject: Terrorist FBI, on Terrorism
>> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:58:23 EDT
>>
>> Statement for the Record
>> FBI Director Louis J. Freeh before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
>> September 3, 1998

>> The FBI supports a balanced encryption policy that satisfies fourth
>> amendment concerns for privacy, the commercial needs of industry for
>> robust encryption, and the government's public safety and national
>> security needs.

For the Nth time, let me restate the obvious: all current crypto
restrictions being discussed involve _exports_. There are no domestic
restrctictions whatsoever on domestic use of crypto. Any of us, even
resident aliens, tourists, terrorists, etc. are perfectly free to use PGP,
one time pads, stego, and even Meganet Snake Oil Unbreakable Crypto.

There are, officially, no proposals on the table to limit speech within the
U.S. by limiting the types and forms of language may use. There is the SAFE
bill, which stands zero chance of passing, but this involves relaxing
export requirements (though I expect compromises added, such as the
felonization of crypto use in a crime, are an unwelcome step toward
domestic restrictions).

But it bears constant repeating, especially to the skeptical, that there
are NO DOMESTIC CRYPTO LAWS. Unlike some other countries, the fascists have
not yet managed to get a foothold in the attempt to limit use of crypto by
the citizen-units.

We all know this, but Freeh and Company continue to mumble about "meeting
the legitmate needs of law enforcement." What can they be speaking of?

And since the Fourth Amendment is an internal U.S. thing (not counting
limited applicability to some foreigners, and of course to U.S. citizens
abroad who encounter U.S. offices, etc.), what can Louis possibly be
referring to when he speaks of the Fourth Amendment? Surely he is not
referring to satisfying the Fourth Amendment concerns for privacy amongst
the Russians, Afghans, and so forth?

Obviously his side is contemplating domestic crypto restrictions.

We all know this, but it sometimes bears repeating what the Constitution
says, what the status quo is, and what they are proposing.

They are planning domestic crypto restrictions, GAK, and all the rest of
what we have long expected.

When that comes, anyone will be full jusfified in taking action by any
means necessary to halt the onset of the total state.

--Tim May

"The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of
tyrants...."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist              | black markets, collapse of governments.