Interim Response from Philip Zimmermann 305
Overreaction to Washington Post ArticleIt seems that my recent clarification of how I was represented in the 21 September Washington Post article has itself created a deluge of harsh criticism of the Washington Post and the reporter who wrote the article.
People seem to be assuming the Washington Post is part of some grand conspiracy to restrict the availability of strong cryptography. I would like to say that this is an overreaction and a misinterpretation on the part of these critics.
I believe this was an honest misunderstanding by the people at the Post, and I never meant to imply in my previous clarification that this was done on purpose or with any malicious intent. On the contrary, I believe the Post worked hard to be fair in the story and had the best of intentions when they ran it.
Further, I'd like to say that all the individual facts and quotes were reported correctly. But the Post connected the dots in a slightly different way to conclude that I was feeling guilty even though I was simply feeling grief and anger just like everyone else since the attacks occurred. Overall, I thought the article was fine except for that one line that says I was "overwhelmed with guilt."
My purpose for sending out my original clarification was not to criticize the Post but to assure everyone that I am still standing firm on my convictions that PGP and other strong encryption products should be available to the public, with no back doors.
Through the years of coverage the Post has given the issue of cryptography restrictions, I have never detected any bias at the Post to promote restrictions on crypto. In fact, if they have any bias at all, it seems to be in the other direction. They helped me when I needed to keep the Justice Department at bay in 1995. We will need them again in the coming weeks as we in the crypto community attempt to keep the freedoms we have, as legislators try to impose new restrictions on strong crypto.
I find this jihad of criticism of the Post to be inappropriate. I can easily tell from talking with the reporter that her intentions were good. It is grossly unfair to punish her with all this hate mail. It's embarrassing to me and damaging to her. If anyone in the world of journalism wants any further clarification from me on that reporter's competence or journalistic integrity, feel free to call me directly and I will explain it to you in more detail.
I am in London at a data security conference, without as much Internet access as I have at home, so I cannot keep writing about this matter for much longer. I hope this letter is enough to put this matter to rest.
Sincerely,
Philip Zimmermann-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.3iQA/AwUBO7ILqcdGNjmy13leEQLryACfffYuStFXNTC0aWnJStMEAWsbQSgAn0ID d2bqoxnEbABk+1V/edlzC84A =uBHG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Zimmerman comes across as constructive and considered precisely because he spends more time trying to clear up the facts rather than point the finger at everyone in sight, blame the establishment and cry conspiracy at the top of his voice. It's precisely because his contributions to discussions are so considered that he has reached a position where his opinions carry a lot of weight.
Anyone who was expecting a similarly considered reaction from Slashdot (as a whole, not individuals), was obviously being a little optimistic. Most of the posts seemed to indicate that the most people got out of Zimmerman's letter was that the Washington Post had misrepresented him - they then went on their (somewhat predictable) anti-WP crusade as they perceived one of their heroes to have been slighted.
Thank goodness the hero himself has the presence of mind to calm things down before they get out of hand. But I doubt the reaction did much to endear the Slashdot crowd to him. At least he knows where to go if he needs to rally some unconsidered fanatical support.
Disclaimer: I am not making comments directed at any individual post, but at a theme that ran through a number of posts in the other thread, so don't take it personally.
(mod parent up) Re:hmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:(mod parent up) Re:hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, shouldn't media be required to publish a little disclaimer somewhere, "The events in these reports have been dramatized for theatrical purposes." I've long been wary of the media's attemps to blur the line between reality and fantasy, particularly in a democracy, and even more so during a crisis. Sure it makes big bucks for Hollywood to get people to suspend disbelief, but that's not appropriate for an organ that claims to be some journal of record.
Measuring media dishonesty (Score:2, Informative)
In general i think most press dishonesty is in pursuit of the aim to be more interesting. That's the main selling value. Political agendas are much less important to press than most people think.
Useful moderation system for Slashdot? Very valuable, yes. Question is how. Too heavy for full use.
Re:hmm. (Score:2)
The stories printed in this newspaper (or any media for that matter) are for entertainment purposes ONLY, and are not to be construed as a truthful representation of reality in any way.
On second thought, a well informed public being essential for the success of a DEMOCRACY, maybe it IS a commie plot.
Re:hmm. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:hmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why it pays to read what he actually said:
If anyone is to blame for the change it's the editors, not the writer. And the editors are probably pretty stressed right now. I doubt they were being malicious.
You may have heard of the principle "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". Maybe that should be changed to include stress, exhaustion, and emotional turmoil.
Re:hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Newspapers lay out pages by putting in the ads first, then filling the remaining white space (called the "news hole") with stories. Often there are more stories the boss editors feel are important than there is space to run all of them full length, so some or all of the stories get trimmed to fit. Decisions on what words to cut out of which stories are not made by a group of cackling [liberal; conservative; Zionist; law enforcement] conspirators in a back room, but by overworked (and usually underpaid) wordsmiths watching the clock tick toward the moment when the presses are scheduled to run. These people do not have the power to decide which stories get covered and which do not. They are the hands-on people responsible for getting the paper put together on time every day; the sergeants of the newspaper business, you might say.
Deadline pressure combined with the necessity to make the paper fit as much information as possible onto each (expensive) square inch of newsprint is to blame for at least 99% of all perceived newspaper copyediting errors.
The copyeditor who is making the cuts is also, in most cases, proofreading the stories, checking facts, and writing headlines. It is a brutal job, and out of the hundreds of stories a big newspaper like The Post runs in every edition, chances are approximately 100% that at least a few cuts will be made that are less than perfect.
A big advantage Internet news purveyors have over print news sources, and over broadcast sources too, who have "X" minutes of time to fill, and that's it, is that it costs effectively nothing to run 5 extra paragraphs of text on the WWW if those paragraphs will add more depth or accuracy to a story.
Hands-on, daily deadline copyediting is a brutal job carried out not by "anonymous cowards" but by people who do their best to make stories as accurate and readable as possible in too little time, usually on a copy desk that is a few people short not only because of recent media layoffs, but because competent copyeditors are always in short supply. The job takes an immense range of knowledge, powerful research skills, and a willingness to accept attacks for every mistake made while foregoing public credit when everything goes "just right."
- Robin
Your estimate is WAY too generous to the media (Score:4, Insightful)
I have seen, too many times, bias creep its way into copy editing and (ESPECIALLY!) headline
writing decisions. Occasionally (see Slashdot's unfortunate coverage of Wired's "coverage" of the supposed "raid on e-gold" -- which would have been a fine story except that not only did it not happen, both Wired's headline writer and Slashdot's either didn't read the text of their own story or purposely chose to distort that text to make up a better headline) -- the facts be damned. I'm sure that competent copyeditors are always in short supply, but I'd think that even the INcompetent ones might read stories before slapping a headline on 'em and inviting my withering sarcasm.
What I'm disputing here is your "99%" estimate above. I'd say that AT LEAST 5% of mistakes are due to bias (not gonna get into whether there's media bias, or how various media outlets are biased, but we'd probably disagree on that, too). I have seen and informally studied headline & copy-editing errors for DECADES, and over the years the pattern of distortion has been more indicative of agendas than honest accidents in WAY more than 1% of cases. The mistakes AREN'T random (analysts at www.mrc.org and www.fair.org would probably both agree with me on that point, and they disagree on just-about everything).
Again, your eloquence is appreciated (especially by any copy-editors who are reading all this, and I'm sure their job sucks sometimes -- like all jobs can suck!) but your estimate is orders of magnitude off, IMO. Also, if incompetent headline writers really AREN'T anonymous cowards, then there's one over at Wired whose actual name I'd appreciate knowing -- so far all I've got is 'not Declan,' which (even with media-layoffs) doesn't really narrow things down too much, does it?
JMR
(Speaking ONLY for myself!)
Re:hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)
We're not talking about a cut here. The problem isn't that bits of his side were dropped, but that he was misrepresented. In the original article [slashdot.org] he says
Not a cut, not deliberate... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this was a deliberate attempt to slant the story, but it sure looks like an unconscious one. That is, the editor was in a hurry when reading the story, and interpreted it according to his expectations -- as guilt, not grief...
Re:hmm. (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who deals routinely with journalists, I'd have to say your version is the J-school fantasyland version.
For an illustrative example of the real world version, click here [netrinsics.com] (story of Time Asia hiring me to do a hatchet job on Bill Gates).
I've had a CNN reporter based in Beijing complain point blank that China coverage was for all practical purposes written in Atlanta.
I could go on with similar stories for pages and pages.
not the washington post recently (Score:2, Interesting)
A sane reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
convenient (Score:3, Redundant)
Wow, perfect fodder for slashdot then
Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Find the time to write your congresscritter, but do it when you are not emotional. Tell them that security research is not cracking, that cracking is not terrorism (if you don't take the time to properly secure your systems, you need to take some liability!), tell them that crypto is free speech, it is the ability of people to have a private conversation! A conversation without big ears, between a limited group of people. Then let the letter sit overnight and read it in fresh light.
If you really want them to listen, take the time to print out your letter, after you have sent it online, address some envelopes and send them hard copy!
If you really wan to stir some feathers, then remind them of the declaration of independence - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
Chris
A better approach (Score:4, Insightful)
A better approach, it seems to me, is to point out the mind-boggling arrogance of the assumption that strong crypto can ONLY originate in the USA. Sure, we're clever, but it's not like there aren't any clever people anywhere else in the world! Outlawing crypto HERE will NOT prevent the bad guys from using it THERE!
Re:A better approach (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A better approach (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A better approach (Score:4, Interesting)
France tried it. (Score:5, Insightful)
(This was done with the intention of allowing eavesdroping of all comunications in France by the French authorities)
Since then they totally reversed their positions, up to the point of actually promoting the use of Open Source products because they can be checked for the existence of backdoors.
Why?
Or puting things in a different way:
Any nation that adopts a ban on cryptography runs the risk of placing their own companies at a competitive disadvantage to companies in other countries (the US is not the only country doing electronic surveilance) and scaring off foreign companies. Even the mandatory use of back doors in cryptography products has the same risk (eventualy somebody will discover the key that opens the back door, and from there onwards it's the same as if the comunications are unencrypted).
Plus, even if the US adopted laws against the use of cryptograpy or mandating back doors in cryptography products, i doubt very much that the French government would adopt it (specially after having sufered the efects of such a decision in the past). If in such situation the US tried a Trade Embargo against France, it would have to do so against the whole of the EC. You DON'T do a Trade Embargo against the second largest world market (it would be as idiotic as a Trade Embargo against the US)
Re:A better approach (Score:2)
There was this old lady who was interviewed by the hole in Pentagon who said that she would right now give up all her liberties to catch the people who did this. Well, if I was the reporter, I would turn that against her, start screaming at her:
"OK, I'm really from the FBI, and we have strong evidence you have sheltered terrorists! So you say you have not?! Prove it! No, I'm not going to reveal the evidence we have, that would jeopardize the investigation. That goes for the court too, the evidence must be kept secret. You want to face your prosecutors? Forget it, they can't be revealed! Admit you have housed terrorists, admit it! You won't? Hell, we can't use torture, but our new allies can, and you bet they have a lot of experience with it. We'll just turn you over, and they'll make you admit it, you bet, and our new laws makes sure we can accept that as evidence in court."
By that time, the old lady should be crying. And she should, because this is really, really scary. If you lower the standards for courts, then you open up to prosecutions, witch-hunts, that are very, very bad, and you'll get a lot of false convictions.
Even easier: "We have evidence you are an illegal immigrant!! You've lived your whole life here? Don't make me laugh! Prove it? Yeah, sure an identity card proves nothing, they're easily forged. You know what we do with illegal immigrants: Indefinite detention."
The problem here is that those who have nothing to hide, they have no less reason to be worried, because any lowered standards means that if you're just unfortunate to look like somebody who committed a crime, have been using the same computer as somebody who committed a crime, you'll be as deep shit as anybody.
This is a really strong reason why also those with nothing to hide should oppose legislation that takes away essential liberty.
In the particular case of encryption, it makes society stronger, more likely to withstand attacks. When you are attacked, crypto should be used more extensively, and greater efforts should be made to make sure there are no holes, not the other way around.
Re:Thank you (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that security research is not cracking.
Cracking is not terrorism in most cases, but if you crack some critical systems, it can get people killed. And though it doesn't rise to near the level of terrorism where people are killed, crackers who cost lots of innocent people a lot of time and money just to make their point or for the fun of it are still scum.
if you don't take the time to properly secure your systems, you need to take some liability!
People who don't secure their systems should take some responsibility for their lack of action. I think liability is the wrong word, because to me it infers that they deserve to be hacked. They don't. They have a responsibility because their lack of security can allow their system to be used against others. Trusting people that don't lock up their valuables don't deserve to be robbed. People that choose not to arm themselves don't deserve to be attacked. Defence against many forms of attack, including cracking may very well be a good idea, but lack of it does not imply guilt on part of the victim.
I strongly support free speech. I think that crypto laws requiring back doors, or making crypto insecure for the common person are wrong, and would be ineffective in their goals.
As part of supporting free speech, I am strongly against malicious cracking. Worms, viruses, trojans and the like do a lot to harm innocent people who just want to get online but don't have a lot of technical knowledge. The internet is a great tool for free speech, and it shouldn't be kept from them just because they don't know how to properly secure their home computer from malicious attacks of others. If the govenment ends up passing harsh legislation which inhibits our freedom to protect such people, it is the crackers who deserve the lion's share of the blame, not the people who got cracked.
I understand that in order to improve security, security needs to be tested. I also understand that in order to get vulnerabilities fixed, that security issues need to be made public. The way they are made public could often be handled better though.
If you really wan to stir some feathers, then remind them of the declaration of independence - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
You may stir up some feathers with this, but I doubt you'll help your cause. I agree that as a last resort, revolt is actually a responsibility of an american citizen. But only as a last resort, and only for the good of the country.
I realize that I made some comparison between terrorism and cracking in this post, and I want to state that I don't want to trivialize the problem of terrorism with this. Terrorisn is crime that far outshadows cracking. Malicious cracking is more of a petty terrorism in which lives aren't lost.
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Why this is I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
A agree that the "War on Drugs" has been far from effective making our country a better place to live. I also agree that predijuice and bigotry still exhists and is a major problem that our country faces. I'm just not sure how a violent revolt will help this problem. There are many ways to fight injustice. Violence should be a last resort, and only if it's use can make things better in the end. I am however a white male, so maybe this hasn't effected my directly enough for me to have a well formed opinion on it.
and the shameless indoctrination of our children in government institutions as an outgrowth of these and other events (like the failure of Americans to remember how to defend themselves), that we are in fact very close to the point of taking up arms to defend our freedom.
I very much respect and support the right to bear arms. Police often can only react to violent crimes rather than prevent them. People should have the right to protect themselves. I believe the fight to protect these rights is still a political one rather than a violent one.
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Well-known political cartoonist Pat Oliphant said it in picture [yahoo.com] very well; for the graphics-impaired, Uncle Sam is wielding a long sword, and there's this little kid waving an American flag and wearing a t-shirt that says "Civil Liberties." Uncle Sam says, "Watch out for the backswing, kid." I think if that little kid went over and kicked Uncle Sam hard in the shins, he might just pay attention. How we do that... well, I've got a few ideas, but I admit I'm not very good at ideas. Any suggestions are welcome. ('course, we could go give him a big wet sloppy kiss, too... again, how we do that, I ain't figured out yet.)
Americans are pissed off, angry, hurting, and in some cases scared shitless, and they're not thinking straight. If we can't find the appropriate bucket of cold water...
--
Those who say we can't simultaneously prepare for war and work for peace are doomed to be caught with their pants down. -- me
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Besides which, the time for this has passed. If we were going to have any real chance to revolt, it was quite a while ago. Now we're going to have to work from within the two-party system for a while before a revolt can be successful. If they'll call in the national guard to stop a mere riot, think of what they'll do in the case of a significant percentage of the american public revolting?
And please, no jokes about a significant percentage of the american public already being revolting. We all know it's true, and we've found ways to live with it. Like redneck jokes.
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Cracking is definitely bad and should be punished, but these right-wing over-reactionary witchhunts have simply got to stop.
I agree that this needs to stop. I don't personally believe that it's "over-reactionary witchhunts". I think it's people who have adgendas, that are using this tradegy to push those adgendas.
Re:Thank you (Score:2, Insightful)
terrorism need not be violent (Score:2)
Re:Thank you (Score:2, Insightful)
Joe
Sorry, can't think of a good sig right now
Vote People! (Score:2)
Don't forget the experience of John McCain, who learned not to fight the system, the poster boy was chosen, even though he consistenly proved to have a much higher appeal with general voters, he couldn't swing the party stalwarts voting for the poster boy.
Any sort of revolution must be the absolute last resort in any political discussion. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned in how ultra conservative christians staged a grass-roots takeover of the republican party in the 80's.
Hopefully we will never give away the most important right the founding fathers gave us in fulfilling our duty, the means to protect ourselves from our government. (insert your favorite cliche here - but yes, for the record I am a licensed firearm owner) Maybe the government was right all along in classifying encryption as a munition, it certainly is a very effective tool in protecting us from the prying eyes and ears of the government.
Vote, educate your representatives, educate your neighbors, that's by far the best way we have of maintaining a free and open society!
Chris
Thank you (Score:4, Insightful)
I have read the article in the post and agree that it is a well written article with the exception of how Phil feels. Rather the reported was doing it intentionally or not is up for grabs but because of Phil's integrity, I am willing to accept that this was probably just as he has said, the editor changed a few things before it hit the presses. No that is not fair and if he did not say it then there should be a retraction. But I have worked with reporters who have screwed up and retractions are not as easy to get as the story itself.
Phil, keep up the fight and dont give up on your morals. I couldnt agree more that strong encryption is a right of every person on this earth. I couldnt agree more that it will be used for ill-intent. But it does so much more good than bad.
I switched to gpg.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank you (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, I am curious to know wtf pampered teenagers have to do with anything? If your implication is that I am a pampered teenager, fraid you are a few years too late
Also is it sacrificing their lives for the ideals of freedom, or sacrificing them to save the lives of others. (ie if you are refering to the sacrifice made by those passengers, then I would argue it was more the latter). In case you were wondering what the difference was:
- The ideals of freedom are subjective, and to a certain extent are based on the ideals of the society which you are brought up in. Personally speaking I don't necessarily agree with the all the ideals of the society I have been brought up, in spite of it being considered one of the more free, but I have work to do, so I am not going to go into that now.
- sacrificing your life for others is a moral decision, one which I like to think I would be willing to do , but will not until (if) I am put in that situation.
anyway, that's enough rambling, I am not sure if I have made a particularly coherent point, or just wasted 10 minutes, but it makes me feel better
Conundrum (Score:5, Insightful)
no conundrum at all (Score:2)
Oh, come on, what is this self-flagellation? We generally do have both self-confidence and passion, and both of those are good assets. And many people in technology try to live responsibly and try to help their neighbors.
Yes, we aren't necessarily "responsible members of a larger community", in the sense of playing the usual political games. But very few people are in a position to do so. If you want to become politically active yourself, you need lots of time, money, and photogenicity. Or, you may have even more money to pay others to do that for you.
The press is in for a large amount of deserved criticism: I see very few articles on technical and scientific subjects that don't contain either serious, substantial omissions or outright blunders. Publications like the NYT, the Post, and the WSJ have a lot of very self-absorbed, self-righteous journalists that use the prestige of their publications to push whatever agenda they may have . These journalists are hobnobbing with the rich and powerful, and are themselves in an income bracket, that they pretty much have lost touch with reality.
Zimmerman has to be nice to the Post. But, really, substantially misrepresenting his position is serious stuff. Isn't accuracy the first thing we should expect from a reputable paper?
I think the NYT, Post, and WSJ are useful not for their content, which is objectively of low quality and standards, and rather biased, but only for the influence they seem to have on US society. It's worth reading an article in those papers when it is widely cited; otherwise, it's best to ignore them. Get your news elsewhere--with the Internet you can.
Re:no conundrum at all (Score:2)
I'm not advocating everyone here getting out and being active in their communities. What I'm advocating is behaving in a reasonable manner, particularly when representing Linux, or Free Software, or Crypto, or whatever. I suspect much of the email that the Post recieved WRT the misrepresentation inculded a lot of "fuck you"'s and and other vulgarities that serve no positive ends. It's ineffective at best, detrimental at worst.
It's certainly different than the criticism you rightfully suggest they are due.
Re:Conundrum (Score:3, Insightful)
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, describes "jihad" [dictionary.com] as:
jihad also jehad (j-häd) n.
1. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
2. A crusade or struggle: "The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke" (Fortune).
Now, we can certainly agree that a sizable contigent of the Slashdot Faithful would certainly fit the second definition when it comes to assualting "infidels" among the Press. That the Press (particularly the "Yellow") need to be scrutinized is without question. At issue is the manner in which many among us do it.
Now, I've never been the object of Slashotter scorn, so I don't really know what it's like. But I've read enough "How-To Be a Linux Advocate" and other rants about the vitriolic knee jerks that populate this area to be comfortable with describing their behavior as being consistant with that of a jihad in the non-Muslim sense of the word.
Smells slashdot fanatics... (Score:2, Troll)
"I find this jihad of criticism of the Post to be inappropriate. I
can easily tell from talking with the reporter that her intentions
were good. It is grossly unfair to punish her with all this hate
mail."
Smells like slashdot crowd usual reactions to similar matters.
Can't we expect a little more from this crowd?
Can't we have a dialog without having the word "hate" mentionned?
go ahead and mod me as flambait...
What we need is (Score:5, Insightful)
Although, given that we usually don't read articles before going totally non-linear, it's probably unrealistic to expect people to read the howto.
Reaction without thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
If people continue to react impulsively with arguments based on second, third (nth) hand information - what sort of precedence for electronic communication, are we the technologically minded setting?
We are always told as children to listen to both sides of the argument before reacting - hmmm look where we have arrived in adulthood react to someone else's comment about an argument.
Like the saying goes "Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large numbers"
Re:Reaction without thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
The tears have come in the kitchen, the car and the shower, too. Like many Americans, Phil Zimmermann, a stocky, 47-year-old computer programmer, has been crying every day since last week's terrorist attacks. He has been overwhelmed with feelings of guilt.
Phil is right that "overwhelmed with feelings of guilt" is the critical passage, however, it becomes even more manipulative because of the context in which it is placed. It suggests that Phil's grief was not caused by the attacks themselves, but by his belief that he was somehow responsible for the death of ~7000 people. What Phil is doing now seems more to me like a "Clarify that I don't regret doing it, while not pissing off the WP" strategy (in order to avoid hurting his business). But the truth is, the WP article was extremely manipulative (whether because of sensationalism or malicious intent is irrelevant), and Slashdot was right in pointing that out.
Now, I don't know what kind of letters people have written, and I'm sure some of them were immature, but certainly harsh criticism was and remains warranted. The only thing that is worth emphasizing is that Ariana Eunjung Cha, the author of the piece, likely did not have any bad intentions -- it was the WP editors that made the critical change. As a journalist, I have often experienced that articles by me were manipulated in a way to fundamentally change their meaning, or downplay the importance of certain issues, without giving me any notice of it (in one case of an article dealing with child porn hysteria [humanist.de], the whole article was watered down). So the WP deserves much criticism for doing that -- perhaps just a little more focused on the real problem (editors taking liberties to manipulate the essential message of an article) than it likely was.
Happened to Bill Maher too... (Score:2, Interesting)
He made a statement that was an indirect slam against the Clinton Administration, but some right-wing shock jocks took it as an attack on the US military and Bush. Maher and his advertisers have been hammered with hate mail from the "Free Republic" types and Limbots ever since.
What Maher basically said was that it would be "cowardly" of us to lob cruise missiles at terrorist camps from 2000 miles away, like we did in 1998. He was calling the decision makers (i.e. Clinton) cowards, not the military.
But right-wing nuts reacted to the second-hand information they got from fellow wing-nuts like Mike Gallagher and went ballistic.
Very much the same way that slashdotters went ballistic on the WP.
Bill Maher has always been very pro-military on PI, but because he is impartial and sometimes takes the leftward position on some issues (drug war, death penalty), the conservatives in this country saw it as an opportunity for an attack. Never mind that he was implicitly criticizing their arch-enemy Clinton...he is sometimes liberal, so he must be taken off the air.
The Lesson for today is (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that some of the terrorists might have used PGP is not in itself surprising - they were planning an operation where secrecy is vital and thus they used a secure system - they could have as easily created some code known only to them so the method they used is somewhat irelevant.
The same goes for the planes, they were designed to transport people but they have lots of fuel and become a flying bomb in the wrong hands.
So do we ban planes and crypto software ?
Lets all take a step back from this and look at it in the cold light of day for a minute. Over reaction now will result in long term effects - the US govt has been against strong crypto for many many years - the block on exporting 129k encryption are a case in point - claiming that it might help people commit crimes and hide information, but these are ideas and codes and someone will get them.
So do we ban it ? Why ? isnt it simply arrogance for the US to think that no one else in the world can develop this stuff ? and theres always the secret code devised only for you.
The argument that they might have been able to find out about it is also bullshit, you could disguise this stuff in language so effecitevly you would never get close, so that invalidates that argument.
The fact is the government in the US and in other countries wants to control free access to information and prevent people from hiding it away - the attempts to stop crypto are aimed at their populations - to prevent people from hiding money and assetts, from opposing the government etc
The sacry thing is that as i see the patrotism grow in the US i see a government cracking down on elemental freedoms and toughening laws - computer crime, crypto, etc Whats next freedom of assembly, freedom of speech.
We all need to keep an eye and a ear on the world otherwise what we miss may cost is more than we can ever guess.
I don't understand the people that send... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think this was the right thing to do. Since people can't learn to control themselves. Maybe this will wake someone up.
He stated perfectly clearly in the old article that he liked the Post, and he thought it was a honest mistake. What more do you want?
Even if matters were otherwise, you are destroying for yourself by stooping down to the American election campaign level - ie mud pies.
Professional Criticism (Score:5, Insightful)
But...
The Washington Post DOES deserve critism. Phil is very polite to assure that there were good intentions and that facts were presented properly. Unfortunately, good intentions aren't always enough and the facts reported were not entirely correct.
The issue at hand is the reported guilt that Phil felt. By his own account, he had gone to great lengths to ensure that mistake was not made. And yet the mistake was made and Phil's apparent guilt was reported as fact. Why? Because someone at The Post drew their own incorrect conclusion.
I'm all for reporters putting elements togeather to ferret out the truth of a story. Its part of what makes a good investigative reporter. However, in this case someone put 2 and 2 togeather, got 5... and went ahead with it without any fact checking. Surely Phil wouldn't have been THAT hard to contact for a followup (be it in person, voice, or email).
The Washington Post is a professional, world-class organization. Their reporters are professionals with a great deal of power to direct the attention and impressions of issues held by average citizens. Some of which happen to be in our law enforcement agencies, Congress, and other positions of power and policy. Because of this, the Post and its reporters should be held to a high standard.
The Washington Post failed to meet this standard. They should feel ashamed and are entirely worthy of harsh critism.
Even if they're not deserving of hate mail.
[OT]Re:2+2=5 (Score:2)
I'm guessing the proof fails because that line does not converge, and is ambiguous.
Re:[OT]Re:2+2=5 (Score:2)
Re:Professional Criticism (Score:2)
FBIrony (Score:5, Insightful)
After all of this explosion about crypto and backdoors and limiting the civil liberties of Americans and anyone else we can cause trouble for, it is somewhat ironic (and more than a little tragic) to find that a tremendous amount of information has been gathered through understanding relationships and actions of the perpetrators. This according to the butthead press corps in the US.
This has been pointed out elsewhere, possibly by a congressperson even, but what would our law enforcement agencies do with the tremendous amount of information they are asking to have access to, when they can't properly connect the dots that they already have in plain text right in front of them?
When something like 20 foreign nationals from the same general region of the world get truck driver licenses and apply for hazardous materials hauling permits all within a couple of months of each other, somebody in some FBI office somewhere should ask some questions. There was nothing encrypted in that transaction, and they are only now putting that together.
Besides all of this, bin Laden doesn't even use technology to communicate anymore, having resorted to no-tech messangers to avoid CIA/NSA listening posts. At least that's what our news media is telling us...
"Jihad" (Score:4, Interesting)
I hold you in high regard for your principals and the contributions you have made to the freedom of speech. But I dont think you undersand the word correctly like most other people. I will urge you to watch the CNN's little docu on Islam. As mentioned, in the entire KORAN there are 5-6 references to the word....and mostly the mention is about the battle one fights with oneself!
Uneducated Moslems have been misled by this word. They have been betrayed by people with evil motives. One way the educated community can make a contribution to the cause of anti-terrorism is to really understand both sides of the story. Rather, three sides of the story: yours, mine and the real-hard-truth.
Re:"Jihad" (Score:2, Insightful)
For better or worse, Mr. Zimmermann's comments were in American English, where jihad has come to imply a struggle with more fanatical implications. Our dictionaries are based on common usage and common misusage...
Entry number 2 from its definition at dictionary.com [dictionary.com]:
A crusade or struggle: "The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke" (Fortune).
I would suggest, though, that PZ use something like enduring squabble in place of that other word.
"Crusade" (Score:2)
Yet when Bush calls a "crusade" against terrorism, not everybody think of fanatical mass murder. Muslims do, though.
So I would recommend care when using these words under the current circumstances.
What's the point of the DS? (Score:5, Insightful)
No point. Except to look cool.
Aren't back doors dangerous? (Score:5, Funny)
So how does a government restrict access to a back door?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.0
iQA/
NSA-OPS:ThEBacKDoORPaSsWorDIS:LETMEIN:bAjmy13le
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lawmakers should learn from history (Score:4, Interesting)
Put backdoors on current cryptography programs, and you will ensure that only the criminals have real crypto. For more information, see The Code Book [amazon.com].
Slashdot and Crypto (Score:5, Informative)
Do you think you could give the Slashdot crew a quick lesson in using crypto? From the way they've posted the last two missives from you, it's obvious they don't actually use PGP or GnuPG and have no clue how to transfer information in such a way that the digital signature remains valid.
I mean, providing a link to the original text file seems to be too hard for them, so maybe you could walk them through the procedure for verifying a document and then ask them to try and do that on their own postings, to see what they are doing to those of us who verify signatures when we see them?
I mean, what's the point of signing a message if no one can verify it? Not that I think Slashdot would lie, but for all we know they've been duped into posting something that isn't from the real Phil Zimmerman. Or maybe their stories are being tampered with-- it's happened to bigger fish recently (and Slashdot itself has been hacked before).
Thanks!
Re:Slashdot and Crypto (Score:2)
gpg: Signature made Wed Sep 26 18:08:57 2001 BST using DSA key ID B2D7795E
gpg: requesting key B2D7795E from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
gpg: key B2D7795E: no valid user IDs
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
I'm guessing PGP7 and GPG don't work together completely.
Re:Slashdot and Crypto (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot and Crypto (Score:2)
2. The real Philip has my home and cellular telephone numbers. I have his, too.
3. He has a distinctive phone voice and set of verbal mannerisms that would be hard to duplicate.
4. He phoned me and said "I am sending you an email right now" both times.
- Robin
Re:Slashdot and Crypto (Score:2)
2. So you're tight. Excellent.
3. I wouldn't know. Never met him or spoke to him on the phone.
4. Are you saying you didn't check the signature?
I'm sorry to be such a dink in my previous posting, but none of 1-4 helps those of us who are just readers of your fine web site, and seeing a signature have an compulsive need to verify it. Security is a process, right? Running checks once in a while is part of the process.
Re:Slashdot and Crypto (Score:2)
Yup, I agree. Without a means of verifying the signature, having it as part of the post is at best a waste of space. At worst, since the signature can't be checked, it implies it wasn't Philip Zimmermann who wrote that message.
The whole point of a PGP signature is to verify that someone is who he/she claims to be. A posting with a PGP signature that can't be verified is meaningless. An unsigned post by somone calling himself "Robin" saying "I talked to him on the phone" is not proof of anything. (I'm not saying I doubt that the note is from Zimmermann or the post is from Robin, it's the principle of the thing).
was crypto even used? (Score:5, Informative)
"FBI investigators had been able to locate hundreds of email communications, sent 30 to 45 days before the attack. Records had been obtained from internet service providers and from public libraries. The messages, in both English and Arabic, were sent within the US and internationally. They had been sent from personal computers or from public sites such as libraries. They used a variety of ISPs, including accounts on Hotmail.
According to the FBI, the conspirators had not used encryption or concealment methods. Once found, the emails could be openly read."
What I don't understand is.. (Score:4, Insightful)
And besides, all of Osama's communications weren't through high-tech means [cnn.com] but also low-tech. When the someone figures out how to trace one of Osamas high tech communications, he will just switch to a low tech form.
Re:What I don't understand is.. (Score:2)
But isn't it obvious that if you use uncrackable crypto you'll pick up a humint tail who will try to see if your shrouded commo could contain plans for another attack?
Suspicions are easy to raise in an uneasy society. Ask any Muslim in America now if just going to church doesn't mark them for unjust reprisals, from dirty looks to murder.
All the violence is moot, anyway. We deliberately set up a society and a government that allows you to change it from within, in a way that, if your revolution is successful, guarantees your changes will be accepted. But our enemy does not have such a system in place.
It's not our freedom that needs to be ended. It's their tyranny.
--Blair
Media and conspiracy (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's not a conspiracy, but it is a symptom of a much deeper problem. The fact remains that the paper blatantly misrepresented Phil's opinions in order to further the current agenda of cracking down on civil liberties. This distortion is not a coincidence, but it's not deliberate either. In fact, it's scarier than that. People who are sufficiently indoctrinated hear what they want to.
We don't need any controlling evil mastermind to produce the appearance of a conspiracy. All we need is a set of implicit and unstated tendancies where most people do what they think ought to be done, and the mass moves inexhorably in a particular direction, irrespective of a few free thinkers trying to throw a spanner in the works. This group concensus serves the interest of those in power (the rich, via corporations, media - which is corporate owned, and politicians - who are also corporate owned), and pushes the rest of the population in that direction.
Mainstream media is even more laughably distorted than normal at the moment. Suddenly the media is full of convenient statistics "80% of US population favors back-doors in encryption". And what percentage of the US population has any idea what the hell that means ? What was the queston "Do you favor laws that make it harder for terrorists to communicate in private ?" or "Should it be illegal for people to try to stop others from monitoring their communication ?"
Corporations and politicians have a vested interest in eliminating free speach from the population. They don't want you talking to each other, they want you listening to them. They definitely don't want you saying stuff to each other without them being able to monitor it and punish you for saying stuff that makes them uncomfortable. The real reasons for the desire to restrict and monitor may not even be apparant to the "group mind", but everyone has a huge capacity for self-delusion.
The media is just as accurate about other stuff. They laud George Jr's "bravery" without a trace of irony, like the jester in the Holy Grail "When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled...." Meanwhile the cowardly terrorists were cowardly
giving their lives for their beliefs. Fanatical assholes, sure, but cowardly ?
The distortion is much worse than you think. The entire language is adjusted in a thoroughly Orwellian fashion. When people on our side die, the "terrorists" cause the "murder of innocent, men, women and children". Fine, this is accurate. However, when we do start beating up on Afghanistan. "Military commanders" will replace "terrorists" and "inevitable collateral damage during surgical strikes" will replace "bombing civilans". It's very difficult to reason about something when the terms are properly loaded.
The language molesters will be hard at work over the next few months. The funny thing is that when we hear blatant distortions in the other direction, (eg "The great satan") we laugh at the stupidity and talk about how these people have been brainwashed into believing all sorts of nonsense. Yeah, "they" hate us because they're jealous and they're victims of brainwashing and propoganda. Meanwhile, we're going to destroy civil liberties, escalate corporate welfare (through "defense" spending), slaughter innocent civilians and risk our own soldiers fighting people across the world who previously had no serious quarrel with us, because we're all well informed and logical.
Language (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is terminology implies that the terrorist's actions were targeted at innocent people, whereas the military actions will be targeted at the terrorists and their sponsors. Since this happens to be the truth (unless you can show some reason to believe that we're planning to attack civilian populations), I fail to see the problem.
Re:Language (Score:2)
Do you really fail to see a disparity between phrases like "murder of innocent men, women, and children" and "inevitable collateral damage". When they crashed a plane into the pentagon, how did the media describe the deaths of those on the plane ? If Iraqi television said "some inevitable collateral damage occured during the attack on a legitimate military target" would that seem reasonable to you ?
Re:Language (Score:2)
The reality is that the people and the government they allow to rule them (the Taliban) deserve what they get, the same way the Iraqis do. Those who allow dictatorship to be thrust on them will get bombed back to the Ston... oh wait, they're already in it. Well, they'll just get dead.
Re:Language (Score:2, Insightful)
1. And this achieves what exactly?
2. They are not in a position to allow or disallow the Taliban ruling them. These people don't vote, but I guess even being able to vote didn't help us (-cough- presidential election).
3. The country in fact didn't allow the current government to rule, through not being able to vote against them. What do we do if we don't support bombing of them? I guess we can't do anything. We must be allowing it to happen. Oh well, the people that don't support the bombing, to use your logic must be allowing these actions to be thrust upon them, so should be bombed back to the stone age. I'm open to you explaining how this makes sense, but I really don't understand and I'm sorry if I'm being thick here. I personally think your point isn't valid.
4. 'Allow dictatorship to be thrust on them'? Do you have absolutely NO respect for these fellow humans? These people aren't idiots, they are like you and me. The majority of these people are JUST like you and me. They want peace. They are idealistic. They want companionship, and comfort. They are normal people. I know some. They ARE us. They did NOTHING to kill anyone. They HATE the fact that so many people have been killed by these terrorists. They regard the terrorists as abhorrent, unhinged people. But you wish to kill them because of they are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
How do you justify the killing of innocent people?
It was done to us. You want to kill more innocent people, in retaliation perhaps?
They are innocent people.
One doesn't retaliate against innocent people, because they are not against you. You are killing your friends by doing that.
Your example of the town is wrong, in my opinion. The residents of the town are not the local authorities. Your analogy falls down because the residents of this town (Afghanistan, perhaps Kabul) want peace, and didn't threaten anything. They are innocent people who don't want to fight with anyone. They just want to carry on their peaceful lives, caring for their kids and family, putting enough food on the table, and maintaining.
But you don't seem to mind these people being bombed, and I just don't understand that.
thenerd.
Re:Media and conspiracy (Score:2, Informative)
Without rambling further, I will introduce all of you who found these ideas +5 interesting to the disturbing world of Noam Chomsky. Suggested reading here [amazon.com] and here [amazon.com] and here [amazon.com].
Conspiracy of Common Cause (Score:2)
Re:Media and conspiracy (Score:2)
I didn't say the terrorists were brave, but it's even more preposterous to rant about how cowardly the attack was. And I could really care less whether Bush had returned to DC or had carried on flying up, down and sideways until judgement day. Still, he certainly gave the impression of being panic stricken. My point was there is a huge distortion in the way things are presented.
What's really funny is that you assume I was in favor of Clinton bombing pharmaceutical factories in Sudan to distract from describing his blow jobs to the senate. The idea that because I don't support Bush I must support Clinton shows how restricted your thinking is. As far as I'm concerned there is barely a fart to separate democratic and republican politicians.
Cowardice is... (Score:2)
Guardian: How the plotters slipped US net (Score:4, Informative)
Guardian: How the plotters slipped US net [guardian.co.uk]
Libraries? (Score:2)
== hammer seller? (Score:3, Interesting)
Same was dynamite, Nobel also thought of the constructive things when inventing it, like mining etc. but there are also people that will use dynamite to blow up other things than rocks.
Personally I think different for things created only for pure destruction. Like rockets, to a limited degree some kind of guns etc.
But also there history made sometimes funny turns. Take the LASER in example, when this technology came up people only thought of them using as super longrange weapons, and got quite funding for this purpose. Now look today, LASERs are used for everything, from construction computers, correcting teeth and eyes, meassuring stars, etc. etc. but one application they failed miserable as weapons themselfs.
Something that all terrorists use! (Score:3, Funny)
Somthing so vile that almost all terrorists, criminals, and other bad people use...
Somthing that is so easy to get ahold of that anyone can get them.
And that is... Pants! Yes, Pants! Just about every crime is commited by someone that is wearing pants! (unless you're in Scotland).
We need to stop the insanity by cutting off the supply of pants to the world. Heaven forbid that somone commits a crime becouse it was so easy to get some pants.
Yes, this is truly a danger to our country! (Score:2)
Somthing so vile that almost all terrorists, criminals, and other bad people use...
Somthing that is so easy to get ahold of that anyone can get them.
And that is... Pants! Yes, Pants! Just about every crime is commited by someone that is wearing pants! (unless you're in Scotland).
We need to stop the insanity by cutting off the supply of pants to the world. Heaven forbid that somone commits a crime becouse it was so easy to get some pants.
And that's why freedom-loving true blooded Americans are buying Utilikilts [utilikilts.com] in record numbers. They're manufactured in the US right here in Seattle, where terrorists tried to blow up the Space Needle, and all the fine workers there love their Fremont neighborhood location.
So, buy American! Get rid of your pants - only terrorists would wear them!
OMIGOD (Score:3, Funny)
Still a bad Article (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the rest aof the article slowly comes around to Phils opinion, that strong crypto is still necessary, and that backdoors severely weaken security protocols including them (they just open up more possibilities of attack). The clear reasoning in that part of the article is inconsistent with the first paragraph, someone applying such reasoning is not "overwhelmed" with guilt.
Also anyone who jumped to aforementioned conclusion is in for a rollercoaster ride, when he reads on and is taken through a whole 180 before being let out of the article. So the whole piece isn't consistent in itself, and someone proofreading, let alone writing it should spot that with a little narrative experience.
I still think that the writer somehow let his own opinions on the matter guide his hand, maybe not even consciously. But i really wonder what picture of Phil Zimmerman that reporter must have created in his mind, to come up with someone overwhelmed with guilt and yet reasoning it all away.
Help fight anti-crypography legislations (Score:4, Informative)
Also, elsewhere on Slashdot, again I can't find the link again, there is a very well-written letter that the author said he would allow for use provided it was modified a little bit.
If we don't want something to happen, we need to make sure to tell our government about it. They are there to represent US, and if we don't want something, it shouldn't happen.
No Regrets About Developing Airflight (Score:2, Insightful)
"We had no idea. If we had, we would have stuck to the bicycle trade, and saved countless lives!" declared Orville.
"Oh, get a life!" replied Wilbur, "We never said any of that. Typical yellow journalism."
better things to restrict than crypto? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are there better things for the United States government to be doing than restricting crypto, spending lots of money on planes or anything else they are doing post NY.
A few statistics
A NY death toll figure 5,500 - CNN [cnn.com] (maybe not the current one, but close enough)
Firearms deaths for 1997 10,369 - pcvp [pcvp.org] (again sorry for the old figures, newer ones have probably gone up)
now, twice as bad. why hasn't anything been done? As I see it its far easier to ban handguns than it is to ban crop dusters, put security guards on Aeroplanes, monitor trucks or declare war on a hidden man.
After all, every one of those weapons has a legitimate purpose. What alternative use does a handgun have?
Re:better things to restrict than crypto? (Score:2)
Target shooting. Backup weapon when bow-hunting bears. (My brother-in-law does that, and bear meat tastes pretty good -- but his hunting buddy didn't aim the arrow just right one fall, and if not for Ralph's
The legitimate uses of fire-arms are grossly under-reported, in crime reports because usually just showing the gun prevented any crime from occuring, and in the media because it's so far outside the typical big-city reporter or editors experience they can't think what to do with the story. E.g., an NRA member finally found a reporter that seemed willing to listen and sent him documentation of 20 cases of people using guns to defend themselves against crime. Then at the interview, the first question was "People really use guns to defend themselves?"
Re:better things to restrict than crypto? (Score:2, Insightful)
The insane War on Drugs has militarized our American inner cities with police using legal guns to shoot and kill innocent bystanders, and druggies using "illegal" guns to shoot back at police and at competitors.
Drug dealers can't go to court to solve turf problems, nor can they go to court to gain relief from some junkie who just ripped them off. Their only relief is to use their "illegal" gun to administer instant "justice."
Decriminalizing the ingestion of whatever substances you wish to put into your body, for whatever reasons you may have for that ingestion, would go a long way towards reducing the 10,369 statistic.
But instead, our National Socialist government insists that they have the (unconstitiontional) right to impose National standards on every Social group through out the country regading what you can or cannot ingest. The result is the carnage of the Drug War, and those politicians who are responsible for the carnage continue to claim that they're only continuing it for "the good of the people."
Well, I assume you might allow that the new Federal Marshals on airplanes might have a use for them.And, had our politicians not traitorously trashed the second amendment many years ago, the events on September 11 may have been prevented completely. Had any one of the passengers on AA Flight 11 been armed as the second Amendment prevents the government from restricting ("...shall not be infringed." doesn't allow for an infringement on airplanes as an exception) those hijackers wouldn't have even made it to the flight attendants before being challenged and/or shot.
You see, the politicians don't trust ordinary Americans with the right to self-defense. They believe they know better and are less likely to go crazy and use armed force in a detrimental way. (Anybody remember Ruby Ridge and Waco?)
Because most of the people who write and speak for the "media" have been trained at Columbia University, they have an immediate bias against individual self-defense rights. They assume that Americans are incapable of making good decisions regarding the use of armed force. See Eric S. Raymond's thoughts on this. [tuxedo.org] As Raymond points out, yes, there is a vanishingly small minority that cannot, and should not, handle their own self-defense. But if you punish everyone for the inabilities of an extremely small minority, you are doing just what Ben Franklin warns against in my .sig below.
Misquote (Score:2, Interesting)
Just D/L'd my PGP before the legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish the Politicos would STOP the GrandStanding and start dealing with REALITY and the ISSUES. Ashcroft is one of the WORST REACTIONARIES. He fully realizes that the extraordinary powers he is requesting WILL NEVER BE REVOKED.
Reasoned and balanced response... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some common /. fallacies on crypto (Score:3, Informative)
1) Arguments equating unbreakable encryption with various tools or envelopes for private mail are specious. Envelopes are easily opened - and can be opened under a court order. Hammers, pants, airliners, and crypto do all have uses beyond terrorism - but the vast majority of the value of crypto could *theoretically* be retained with well managed (i.e. privately owned and run, paid for by crypto users) key escrow.
2) Terrorists using alternative unbreakable crypto is NOT an argument against key escrow. Requiring all communication using strong encryption to use key escrow has the flip side of making other forms of encrypted communication illegal. Discovery that a suspect is using illegal/unbreakable encryption would be enough to arrest them and detain them indefinitely for contempt of court if they failed to turn over the keys to their crypto.
To defeat any particular "government backdoor crypto scheme", you must
(a) show it damages recognized constitutional rights;
(b) show it could not work because...(?);
(c) get enough people using it and emotionally attached to the protection it provides, that they irrationally tell their law makers to buzz off - or engage in widespread civil disobedience once key escrow is mandated.
Re:Some common /. fallacies on crypto (Score:3, Insightful)
Crypto is also easily opened -- just use a key logger or an old-fashioned hidden camera aimed at the suspect's keyboard.
Of course, this is only practical against a reasonably small group of suspects. An attempt at dragnet fishing expeditions would be too difficult, and the risk of detection would increase more or less linearly with the number of targets.
Thus, any argument in favor of using a technology that lends itself to fishing expeditions (key escrow) rather than one that lends itself to specifically targeted surveillance (key loggers and bugs) raises a red flag that the former is on somebody's agenda.
the vast majority of the value of crypto could *theoretically* be retained with well managed (i.e. privately owned and run, paid for by crypto users) key escrow
One corrupted escrow agent, and an arbitrarily large number of people's communications are compromised.
If you say that your definition of "well managed" excludes that possibility, then you ought to admit that what you're really saying is: "the value of crypto could *theoretically* be retained with perfect key escrow".
Requiring all communication using strong encryption to use key escrow has the flip side of making other forms of encrypted communication illegal.
In general, this cannot be detected without fishing expeditions. In specific cases, see above re key loggers, etc.
Re:what!!? (Score:4, Insightful)
"That's the BEST time to interview someone, sure the answers you get might not make sense sometimes, but it really shows how a person feels, which is the point of the interview! And plus, you'd think someone with the smarts of Zimmerman would be able to articulate himself in any situation! Is he scared of what might happen to him if he says what he really thinks?? Labeled as a terrorist?"
I can see that your many years as a professional journalist qualifies you to make this statement, but I digress even before I begin. About the quickest way I can think of to announce to the world that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about is to even suggest that Phil Zimmerman is afraid to stand up for his convictions in the face of any adversity. Apparently you didn't read anything he ever wrote, including both Slashdot articles, as he came right out in both cases and stated emphatically that he supports public crypto and will continue to do so regardless of what anyone thinks. He realizes that people who want to outlaw it seak to outlaw the first and fourth amendments of the constitution of the United States of America. For now, I will assume you just completely misunderstood everything he ever said, because I would hate to think that you posted without even reading the links. We all no Slashdot readers never do that 8^}
Cheers!
Zero__Kelvin
Re:what!!? (Score:3)
Heroes of Peace and Freedom in year 2061 schools.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Let us now all have a week of careful meditation on the pain and suffering endured during the Greatest Dark Age of history, before all humans learned to wish only the Peace of God upon each other. Once we have all passed a week thinking upon these matters, our class will resume for a discussion of how similar misunderstandings and applications of the now-debunked "greater good" system of pseudoethics were also being perpetrated, to various degrees of horror, by governments and organizations outside the former United States of America.
Re:use of word jihad (Score:3, Informative)
But just 'cos its written don't make it right, so I may be wrong.
Re:Is this really Phil? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Philip why are you interested in cryptography?? (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems that no-one understands you anyway so you might as well send everything as plain ASCII!
Bah - who modded that down! It was a joke!!
Jeez someone got out of bed the wrong side today..
One thing (Score:2)
I am certainly willing to let quite a few things slide in the wake of this terrible tragedy that has befallen our nation if it means we could prevent this from occuring a second time; my only request is that our plans are implemented intelligently, not out of fear and panic on behalf of our elected officials.