Crypto Advocate Under Investigation by FBI 286
Seth Scali writes "Cryptography advocate and former member of the IETF staff William Simpson is under investigation by the FBI for treason. Apparently, he is accused of 'challenging authorities and laws that may impinge upon his activities'. " As you would imagine, the case involves cryptography and the DOJ/FBI has some other strong feelings about crypto folks.
Re:this is useless... (Score:2)
I would not put much stock in this posting.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:1)
I am an American, and I appear to have a much better understanding of constitutional law than you.
It so happens that I have an "actual" copy of the constitution before me. The second amendment reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Exactly. You have the right to bear arms in connection with your service as part of the militia. Thank you for quoting the actual constitution for me, I didn't remember the actual wording off the top of my head. It quite clearly does not grant anyone the right to bear firearms except in relation to their militia service.
According to the United States Code, the militia consists of all able-bodied males over 18. This coincides nicely with "private citizens."
Since you're so good at quoting documents, could you quote this one or at least provide a reference? And "US Code", you say? The amendment deals with the right of a State to maintain a well-regulated militia. I highly doubt any federal law can be made which deals with the composition of a state militia. Further, note that "all able-bodied males" is hardly a well regulated militia. So even if this section of US code exist, it's not relevant to the 2nd Amendment, which deals with "A well regulated militia" maintained by a "State".
I think your argument that the 2nd amendment has been misunderstood for 300 years is rather baseless.
I did not say that the 2nd Amendment has been misunderstood for 300 years. For one, since the 2nd Amendment is only about 210 years ago, this would be a very stupid thing to say. And for two, the US Supreme Court has already correctly pointed that the 2nd Amendment does not guarentee the right of any citizen to keep a firearm for any old reason on several occasions. So, the Supreme Court at least has not misunderstood the constitution, which is good since its part of their job to understand it!
Take your facist ideas back to Japan, please. Where the Shoguns prohibited people from owning weapons.
Why? I would oppose that, just as I oppose excessive gun-control. I support the right of individuals to own firearms. I have never said otherwise. I merely pointed out that the constitution doesn't necessarily do so. I don't suppose lying to support a cause, and I think its stupid to stick your head in the sand pretending the constitution will protect your rights when in fact you need to fight for sane laws if you want your rights in this area protected.
--
FBI terrorism? (Score:1)
This investigation is of course not a sentence or anything but to me it seems like an act of mental manipulation, warning him not to step over this line again.
Maybe the FBI and other government agencies are just running scared they have no idea how to deal with the internet, so they end up doing these stupid things.
I probably should never have posted anything like this, my travellers visa will most likely not be renewed.
Like someon said: "even if you are a paranoid, does not mean that they are not out to get you"
Re:Export controls through PH33R! (Score:1)
Re:Not surprising. (Score:1)
This should of course say, "I don't support lying to support a cause..."
--
Broom-handles (Score:1)
Thanks, after reading that article, I needed that.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:1)
I'll impale you with the phillips screwdriver blade, I will!
The right to arm bears shall not be infringed upon.
Re:What the hell? (Score:1)
is that the FBI can and has been used as a tool of intimidation/brutality over and over through-out it's history. See Nixon's use of same as an existance proof, or for a more recent version - the Filegate trick pulled by the Clintonistas to get the dirt on their Republican adversaries(not to mention interesting occurences like Waco where the agencies' credibility is trashed.)
You claim that they didn't harass him. Explain that to Richard Jewel(spelling??) another target of "just an investigation."
Badge of Honour (Score:1)
Re:Hmm. (Score:1)
Re:Christians? (Score:1)
This doesn't hold water. People will do just about anything to avoid being burned to death. Jump out of 30 story windows and fall to their deaths, for example. If the BATF corralled people so that if they tried to escape the fire, they would be shot, that wouldn't stop them from trying to escape the fire. And in the second place, I saw footage of the compound while it was on fire. There were plenty of windows that weren't blocked by debris.
The BATF wouldn't have been able to get away with killing them if their religion had been mainstream.
Actually, there'd have been a lot less controversy surrounding this incident if they'd all been mainstream Christians.
--
I have just one thing to say to the FBI.... (Score:1)
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with Geheimnis
hQEOA9DF0EXsPZ32EAQAgZrCGcItAhToQOWhcl8Kb+3dH+7
AHLp/RhNQYiVWz16ArPiAdcrlklVSPVzckcJvlLq3XygFAe
7SaLG53CXhpIYSfz6MsKRzWfm8rr1c32haMNWSVJ6zR9NNJ
/0Vdd88Lr53tE5ZLQBggBl64fXRRTXGvwar8gAtUSj3DlCe
YCwbO6yj75atP7e1l33L7C1tX6/23SKPH5Glzhqy1YEP19U
k4BZfdpHGYZUOI32BxSe15OFKAJwZGjZbQYYpSEh0+UWyXs
XluEo9kLV+LzfgogD9M1pxoRxkqTg9AnX7AaHoTtC/j69dq
ge0J8beu7JEdkas3nnVjqHXWW4aNmA3tL7PDWv3l9i8fFTI
EEpGHiGLr7epf493tB0=
=FIrG
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
U.S. trampling rights? (Score:1)
Uh.. seen China lately? Singapore?
Okay, so they don't have a presence in the U.S., how about RealPlayer, Comet-Cursor (or whatever that silly place is named..), the KKK, the Hell's Angels, Intel, or the Tobacco Industries?
That not enough? Perhaps the Unabomber? The Columbine Kiddies?
There's people out there who'd stomp on your rights a heck of a lot more than the US government if the US government wasn't around.
Kwil
Re:I have just one thing to say to the FBI.... (Score:1)
Re:Dear God. (Score:1)
Re:What the hell? (Score:3)
You must accept that there will be reprocussions often quite painful, if not deadly for your actions, fair or unfair, legal or illegal. You expect, though, that your plight will draw the attention of others who agree that the laws are unjust and will put forth the effort to change them.
Of course, once you commit to violating laws, it becomes your obligation to fight for whatever rights that you believe are held in question. But don't expect the establishment to make it easy for you. That's not their job. Their job is to stay in power.
_______________________________
Re:Not surprising. (Score:1)
I guess that's really the subject of our debate isn't it.
>in connection with your service as part of the militia.
Exactly! But just because I'm a militia member in reserve doesn't mean that I can't keep my weapon, as the constitution allows.
>maintained by a "State"
Slow down, pardner! It doesn't say ANYTHING about states being involved - just that militias are necessary for states to be free!
>Since you're so good at quoting documents,
Sorry, I don't have this one on top of my desk!
> I did not say that the 2nd Amendment has been misunderstood for 300 years
But Americans have ALWAYS owned guns, and it would have to be a misundetstanding if they really weren't allowed to!
> So, the Supreme Court at least has not misunderstood the constitution
The "Supreme" Court vs. 80 million gun owners about Constitutional law? I go with the 80 million side.
> I don't suppose lying to support a cause
What are you implying?
USA is founded on armed rebellion (Score:1)
Re:You speak treason? (Score:1)
If it means that he is deliberately trying to help enemies that's quite different than helping them as a side effect (e.g. attacking Iraq probably helped Iran but that wasn't the intent, just a secondary result)
Re:U.S. trampling rights? (Score:2)
Can they prove it? (Score:1)
It's nice that the media has caught up with this.. (Score:1)
Re:Christians? (Score:1)
> they would be shot, that wouldn't stop them from trying to escape the fire
That's my point - they WERE shot.
>There were plenty of windows that weren't blocked by debris.
Then why didn't survivors come out of these windows? Was the fire burning at that end of the building? Were there BATF with guns there? Tanks?
>preventing people from escaping
I'll rephrase this - preventing people from escaping ALIVE. There were almost no survivors except for the people that left before the fire.
Re:Hrm.. (Score:1)
This is a publicity stunt (Score:1)
He likes publicity and recognition, a trait that had not endeared him to his peers.
He made an appeal to the IETF's board a few months ago (a very time consuming process for all those involved). One of his complaints was that he did not get credit for his contributions.
I would give him very low credibility. I am suprised that anyone believes his story about being investigated by the FBI. Abduction by aliens who can break triple DES in microseconds is next.
Is this the Berlin Wall all over again? (Score:2)
Alas, in reality they do whatever they want, without any democratic direction whatsoever, as Slashdot and a myriad of other news outlets are highlighting almost daily. One has to ask, metaphorically, is their Berlin Wall going to come crashing down around them now that the citizenry has instant global communications and hence the means to show their actions for what they really are?
Re:Not surprising. (Score:1)
Slow down, pardner! It doesn't say ANYTHING about states being involved - just that militias are necessary for states to be free!
I disagree, which is irrelevant. The Supreme Court disagrees, which is not. "Every male 18 or over" does not constitute "A well regulated militia" in either case.
* I did not say that the 2nd Amendment has been misunderstood for 300 years
But Americans have ALWAYS owned guns, and it would have to be a misundetstanding if they really weren't allowed to!
Irrelevant. The question was whether the US Constitution supports that right. Whether or how long Americans have owned guns has absolutely nothing to do with it.
* So, the Supreme Court at least has not misunderstood the constitution
The "Supreme" Court vs. 80 million gun owners about Constitutional law? I go with the 80 million side.
Hehe! True, but again irrelevant. Under US law, it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution. It's the opinion of those 9 people who matter vis a vis Constitutional law, and nobody else's.
* I don't suppose lying to support a cause
What are you implying?
That it's a waste of time to run around saying the 2nd Amendment guarentees you the right to own a gun when it doesn't, rather than concentrating on providing good arguments why you should. And there are plenty of good arguments, so why waste time with the bad ones?
Again, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have the right to bear arms. I own a gun myself and think its a good idea for a certain portion of the population to do so. I'm just saying "The Constitutional Right" argument is bad, and really ought to be avoided if you're actually serious about advocating gun-rights. It's a pointless distraction that makes you look bad when it's rather easily refuted.
--
Re:Not surprising. (Score:1)
Absolutely! The second amendment isn't about duck hunting. It's about protecting your self from evil governments.
If you want your children to be as free as we are, get a gun and join the NRA. Download PGP and force the NSA's Echelon servers to work harder.
Above all, protect other people's rights - even if you don't agree with them. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to make sure you have the right to say it."
FBI wasting its time (Score:3)
What the hell? (Score:4)
The Legitimacy of Government (Score:1)
I can agree that many (most?) things government does are done to serve its own interests, but actions are also caried out to convince people of the legitimacy or necesity of the institution's existence. In these Cryptography stories the U.S. government says that they are doing this to protect us, therefore they are needed, they have a vitaly important purpose. An interesting article advocating this position is availible here [buildfreedom.com]. A quote:
"Social contract is currently fashionable, in the ebb and flow of on-line political debate. This is a contract I never signed, that I've never seen, that has no terms, that is binding upon me but not upon the other party, that can be dispensed with at will by the government but must submitted to by me upon pain of incarceration, whose terms may change on-the-fly or even retroactively, from which there is no escape clause, which is binding in perpetuity, which binds my ancestors and descendants, which requires fealty but guarantees no consideration.
And it's bullshit on its face."
Question Authority! (Score:1)
Re:Not surprising. (Score:1)
Merry Christmas, parner! It's Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. I had it bookmarked. And it's actually 17 years old. My bad.
Read the Federalist Papers, and find out what the founding fathers, MY ANCESTORS, thought about guns.
Also, the supreme court has ruled on only 4 cases relating to the 2nd amend. this century. See US vs. Miller, 1939, a supreme court case which ruled in favor of the right of everyone to keep and bear arms.
Re:U.S. trampling rights? (Score:1)
Interesting Posters (Score:1)
The posters on
So, is this guy guilty of treason? I don't know, but somebody smarter than all of us obviously does. So, instead of saying that the FBI is "too powerful" and that "it should be checked or disbanded," maybe somebody should find out all of the facts. The FBI is the last thing on anybody's list of enemies. The number of murders that they put away each year alone based on DNA evidence is staggering. And when people do things to purposely get the FBI and DOJ in trouble is funny all in its own. Think about it.
Re:What the hell? (Score:1)
The site appears to have recovered from the
--
Re:What the hell? (Score:1)
Re:Not surprising. (Score:1)
Merry Christmas, parner! It's Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. I had it bookmarked. And it's actually 17 years old. My bad.
Thanks! I'll check it out.
Read the Federalist Papers, and find out what the founding fathers, MY ANCESTORS, thought about guns.
Not actually as relevant to Constitutional law as a lot of people think (what's more relevant is what the Supreme Court justices think of the Federalist Papers), but a worthy read nonetheless.
Also, the supreme court has ruled on only 4 cases relating to the 2nd amend. this century. See US vs. Miller, 1939, a supreme court case which ruled in favor of the right of everyone to keep and bear arms.
Or the inability for the law to deny that right for whatever reason the law under question did. It doesn't mean much without considering the specifics. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability for laws to restrict or deny the right to bear arms for some reasons. The only thing that really prevents a general ban on guns is legislative effort. Relying on the Supreme Court to uphold this right is foolhardy.
--
Re:Christians? (Score:1)
You may not recognize their name. They were killed in Waco, Texas.
Re:Under investigation != guilty (Score:2)
Ask yourself this: If you were Field Agent Smith, would you pass someone with such a background, when many other qualified applicants exist with squeaky records? Would you want to take shit if said individual screwed up? I wouldn't, and neither would you. Hence we come to the conclusion that 'Investigation == No Government job', even if it isn't exactly legally mandated so.
On a side note, the FBI do take your driving record into consideration, perhaps too weightedly so. An associate of mine almost failed the background check over his bad record (ran two stop signs in one year) when his company bid on a crap programming job for one of the cabinet-level agencies. (Dept of Energy, I think..)
Re:Christians? (Score:2)
Congressmen are permitted to *refer* a non-profit group to the IRS which is to put them near the head of a queue for examining whether they should lose their tax-exempt status for political activity, which tends to be a no-no... This referral does *not* guarantee an audit... just a check.
Re:this is useless... (Score:1)
There are some laws that are unjust. And because these laws are unjust, generally speaking, it's considered morally correct to intentionally violate them. This is called civil disobedience.
But, just because you may be morally justified in breaking a law, this does not mean you are exempt from the legal consequences of breaking the law.
Voting is certainly one way to try and change a law, but it's not always effective when people are blind to the injustice of that law. At that point, your only choice to change the law is to break it so as to call attention to the injustice of the law. By doing so, though, you risk the consequences from breaking that law.
How does this relate to encryption? It seems obvious to me that encryption issues are more or less ignored by the general public. I've never read anything in the newspaper about encryption. I've never heard anything on NPR about it. Once, I saw something on C-SPAN on the issue. This issue has been hotly debated in tech circles for decades! Yet the general public is generally ignorant, and apathetic of the issue. There simply isn't enough general knowledge of the issue for lobbying and voting to be an effective tool for change. The only tool for change left may very well be civil disobedience. Which brings on the potential that you'll get investigated/harrassed/whatever by those who wish to continue this law.
When push comes to shove, who's willing to risk their careers, freedoms, and lifestyle for encryption? My honest answer is that I'd like to but I'll never know how I'll deal with federal persecution until it's happening to me. In the meantime, I'll continue to write my congressional representatives, and continue to use and advocate strong encryption, and continue to cast my vote appropriately. And if I export strong encryption, I will not feel remorse... until they catch me.
Re:What the hell? (Score:1)
Re:Impossible (Score:2)
It's that some adamantly anti-choice politicos over here oppose the pro-death folks in the UN funding family planning programs that even mention abortion... and hence try to blackmail the President and friends into adding stipulations to their UN funding bills.
Modern Founding Fathers? (Score:2)
Leaving aside reincarnation for the moment (it's probably been patented anyway), serious representation of FF views could probably be achieved by proxy if a sufficient number of learned scholars put their minds, time and money to it. However, in practice this would mean pitting oneself against the establishment, and what learned scholar is going to do that?
Re:U.S. trampling rights? (Score:3)
In other words, you're arguing that A is bad, and that A+B is bad, therefore B is bad.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:2)
We shoot them.
Dead, preferably.
The government has the responsibility to use its granted powers to serve the will of the people. We, the people, have the responsibility to make sure the government serves us. Owning a firearm and learning to use it properly is the only real way we can have this right.
'The Big Bad Evil Government' is a registered trademark of the People's Republic of China. 'The Big Bad Evil Corporation is a trademark of Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:USA is founded on armed rebellion (Score:2)
Actually, the only reason for the armed revolution is because there were no means of generating change under the current form of government. The form of government put in place after the revolution was concieved with the means in place to allow change without the need to resort to armed revolution.
You are confusing the wiping of the slate with the writing after it was cleaned.
Now, if you want to debate the idea that we need aanother armed revolution, that's a different topic! ;) (Good luck with the hamstringing the 2nd amendment has received lately) -Joe
Re:Under investigation != guilty (Score:2)
Reality check: Getting a traffic ticket is a part of your criminal record. Getting investigated for anything (even murder or treason) is not a part of your criminal record. He is not barred from getting a job in a government office as janitor or anything else for having been under investigation. If the job involves anything serious, he'd be investigated anyways, since everyone who's seriously considered for such a position gets investigated! We never hire anyone for those kinds of positions unless they've been investigated! Now, it may be he would be denied even if not prosecuted based on what the investigation was for and what it turned up, but in that case we wouldn't have gotten the job to begin with.
--
Re:someone reincarnate Jefferson (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Not surprising. (Score:2)
Um, I was about to suggest you do the same thing when I read this. I find it hard to believe you've ever read them and can actually claim what you do about the 2nd ammendment. First of all, "State" does not refer to any of the individual states that make up the union. "State" in its most proper sense refers to a nation as a whole. In this light, to say that the State is responsible for regulating the militia makes no sense. The "security of the free State" is, in fact, the security of the freedoms of the nation as a whole. If you read the Federalist Papers, and other writings by the Founders, you quickly realize that the greatest threat they envisioned to the security of this free State was not any outside power, but the government itself. If it was their intent to have the militia regulated by the State, then they would be granting it control over the body that was intended to keep it in check. This would require a monumental feat of stupidity. The 2nd ammendment does, indeed, grant the citizens of the US the right to bear arms. You mentioned in another post that the Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution. This is correct, but misleading. For all legal purposes, the Supreme Court is responsible for deciding the stance of the Constitution, but that does not mean that their interpretation is the correct one. If the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that "Hey, we were wrong all along... there really isn't anything about the freedom of speech in the Constitution, then we would be legally bound by that interpretation. But they'd still be wrong. Even if the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd ammendment didn't protect the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms(which, last I checked, they hadn't), they wouldn't be right. We'd be legally bound by their decision, but to say they were right in their interpretation would be to ignore two centuries of contrary interpretations. Those who founded this country clearly believed this right was protected by the 2nd ammendment, and, since they did sort of write the thing, I'm inclined to believe them, regardless of what the Supreme Court says tomorrow.
Treason? (Score:3)
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
This is just another attempt by the FBI to terrorize an innocent citizen. They have no legal standing to accuse him of treason, and they know it.
But then, terrorizing citizens is what the FBI is there for, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Proposed fix (Score:2)
I mean, symbolically, let all the american members (probably most of it!) resign and name foreigners instead who will hold meeting somewhere else. Just so that 'they' get the message.
--
Under investigation != guilty (Score:5)
--
Hmm. (Score:2)
However, I think that this has the potential to incite online "rioting". It seems alittle premature to say this, but the government hasn't convicted anyone of treason in a long time... if they did it now it'll surely make headlines and piss off a helluva lot of influential people in the technology sector. This really is 1984 - they're telling us how we will, or will not, do our own math? I'd take issue with this on constitutional grounds - math might qualify as a belief. Number *theory*.. which essentially boils down to belief. However, IANAL, and I don't want to explore that issue just yet.
Keep your eyes on this one folks... it could be almost as big as the MS v. DOJ trial if the cards fall right.
I've actually read some of those FOI documents (Score:2)
They are heavily censored, but reading between the lines and into the black bits it sounds like the story goes something like this.
At an IETF meeting in Mexico in 1992 the PPP sig discussed encryption. Simpson was present and said something which made someone else at the meeting suspect he was selling encryption products to a foreign power, in violation of ITAR. They informed the FBI, who investigated and found no evidence to support such an allegation. The investigation was then dropped.
Bear in mind this was back in 92-93. The Internet was an obscure academic toy in those days, and cyber-liberties mostly centered around hacker issues (check out The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling). I don't think this is a big thing.
Paul.
Not surprising. (Score:5)
Seriously, this doesn't surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me if I was under investigation for being a privacy advocate, critical of government policies against citizens, and a PGP user. I am for IPSec, I *use* a form of IPSec. I don't believe in the right of the gov't to blatantly ignore the constitution in the 'interests of national security.'
National security. You sure hear that term a lot, don't you? Now, I have to think. What do they really mean by national? Obviously not national, as national would mean not only the gov't, but every citizen and legal resident of the United States of America. Nothing is done in the interest of National security; it's done in the interests of government security. The government maintains it's power by asserting it's power over it's people. Sometimes fairly and justly - hate crimes, Roe vs. Wade, hate crime legislation. Other times, unjustly and basically illegally - anti-crypto, censorship, harassment. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the FBI has repeatedly abused it's power. The same for the NSA. They both have multi-billion dollar 'black' budgets - budgets that do not have to be accounted for. They can spend the money from that budgeanything without having to account for a single penny , or state what it is spent on.
Don't think the government will stop there, though. It wouldn't surpriese me if this advocate became the next Kevin Mitnick. The next step, logically, is for the FBI to file secret evidence and lock him up in a federal prison, and deny him access to computers for the rest of his life. And don't doubt that the FBI will at the least try to. Why wouldn't they? It's his strongest voice. That's what he's scaring them with now.
Fight oppression. Fight back. Promote your own privacy. National security should mean NATIONAL security - not government security. Use PGP. Don't keep passwords written down. Refuse illegal search and seizure. Complain to the appropriate authorities about harassment. You have rights in this country, unless you're too damn scared to fight for them. I don't know about any of you, but I plan to fight for my rights if I have to, and I'll let no person, company, or government take away the rights that the Gods gave me at birth and that the United States Constitution garauntees me in writing and law.
--RISCy Business
Re:Boy Hemos screwed up this time (Score:2)
In this case we have a story claiming Mr. Simpson is under investigation by the FBI for treason. On some checking of additional sources (something any journalist is trained to do) we find that in fact he is not under investigation (the matter was closed with no action some 6 years ago) and in fact there was no allegation of treason at any time (only suspicion of illegal crypto export).
Now we have a bunch of voices screaming about abusive FBI behavior when it is hardly clear that such behavior existed at any time in this case.
To me this is a pretty sad state of affairs, and one not at all conducive towards actually identifying where real problems exist.
Treason? That's not treason... (Score:3)
Unless he has actually levyed war agains the government, or conspired to, or given aid or comfort to a country with which we are at war, he's not being investigated for treason. In any case, it would have to be proven that integrating encryption in a software standard constitued an overt act of treason (as so defined). I think it's rather an uphill battle to show that conspiring to arrange it so that others might have to violate an export restriction to voluntarily participate in a standard rises to that level...
Espionage and antisocial acts are other issues.
Boy I'm glad I don't live in the States! (Score:2)
Boy, with such... shall we say, strange... laws regarding cryptography in the US, I'm sure glad I don't live there. I certainly don't want to be investigated for "treason" when all I'm doing is trying to defend the right to privacy.
But getting back to the point... I think it's about time those high officials get some sense into their heads... Technology has left them way, way, behind in their traditional model of industry. We're entering into a "New Age", so to speak, and what with the Internet growing uncontrollably, with its own culture, etc., it's about time these people re-think how laws should apply to such things as cryptography. They're clearly so caught in their antiquated ideas they just can't handle the fact that strong cryptography is going to be a fact-of-life not far in the future of the Internet. Fighting against it simply shoots the US in its own foot.
I'm neither a politician nor an economist, but it seems to be that the US is declining... it used to be one of the pioneers in technology, but with the kind of attitude high officials have towards new developments in technology, like trying to shoe-horn the Internet into a traditional physical-goods based model of business, and strongly regulating access to strong cryptography, they may just shoot themselves in the foot so much they will simply fall behind (at least in the computer-related area) and not be able to catch up.
(Disclaimer: This is not meant to be flamebait or FBI-bait. I am not a politician, and I generally avoid politics.)
Re:What the hell? (Score:2)
All the FBI really needs to defeat crypto is a good ad campaign ala the Tweek's Coffee episode of South Park:
"Crypto hurts children. You don't hate children... do you?"
Re:Basis for investigation (Score:2)
I know, I read it often, even though I don't even use NT myself. However, good content is no excuse for this kind of misspelling. If you can't trust your word processors speling (:-)) check, proofread.
Investigations as a punitive weapon (Score:3)
The problem is that in many cases, these kind of actions can work. It certainly has done a lot of damage to the ISP who was hosting the Y2K movie. Having been investigated for treason can certainly adversely affect your career and personal life. I imagine it would also completely eliminate any chance that you could get a job with a security clearance.
Normally, only the courts can declare punishment for an offense, but in these cases, going to the courts may be completely unnecessary for the FBI's purposes, even if it stood a snowball's chance in hell of actually making it into a court proceeding.
Of course if they do it too much, it could backfire, since not having been investigated means you haven't done anything interesting
Juicy bits (Score:2)
Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - We recently published a story regarding cryptography and IPv6, where someone at the Department of Justice accused Scott Bradner, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) area coordinator, of an anti-social act by trying to get encryption inserted into the new protocol. Later, at an IETF meeting where votes were taken for IPv6 encryption inclusion, Fore System's Brian Rosen brazenly claimed that regardless of any encryption inclusion, Fore systems would proceed by including back doors into any included encryption technology. But the harrassment of the IETF doesn't stop there.
We learned that William Allen Simpson, a Detroit-based computer consultant who was on the IETF staff, has been investigated by the federal government for treason charges. Simpson was the person that argued loudly for encryption to be included in the PPP protocol when it was still in design phases. That push landed Simpson in hot whatever with federal officials. Simpson learned through friends that he was under investigation for treason -- the FBI had been interviewing his friends and associates.
Simpson obtained 54 pages of documents from the government under the Freedom of Information act, however the documents were heavily sensored, including the bureau's basis for the investigation.
Re:Treason? (Score:2)
Perhaps they were saying something like: "Well, since we've defined cryptography as a munition, if you give cryptography to foreigners, you're giving them munitions. This qualifies as providing them the means to wage war against the United States (since it's a munition), therefore we're going to investigate you for treason!
You speak treason? (Score:3)
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overy Act, or on Confession in open Court."
In other words, "challenging authority and laws" is in no sense treason according to the Constitution. It's possible that the FBI wish to refer not to treason but to "sedition", which is (roughly) the "crime" of speaking against the government. Obviously, the First Amendment has a lot to say about the legal status of that "crime"!
The status of sedition under U.S. law has in fact varied quite a lot. There have been several anti-sedition laws, from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the Smith Act of 1940, and so on. However, the prevailing sense of the Supreme Court has been that unless a speech act creates "clear and present danger" of lawless behavior, it is protected by the First Amendment from being held as seditious.
In short, the FBI seem to be on extremely shaky ground here. However, I am not a lawyer, and the article is rather vague on what the charges being investigated actually are. So let's wait and see what comes of this one
Re:Now it starts... (Score:2)
I feel like I'm living in China and the tanks are rolling and about to crush my mind of free speech. The FBI seems like it is trying to form its own government and commit treason against its own citizens. Should we file suit?
Re:What the hell? (Score:3)
It can't. I believe the problem is not that he advocated changing laws, it's that he alledgedly advocated violating existing ones. It's the difference between saying "we need to legally change crypto law" vs. "we need to illegally ignore crypto law and export it regardless of what the law says".
The United States is founded on the principle that if laws suck, you change them through the democratic process.
Exactly. If you want to export strong-crypto to North Korea, you get the laws changed through the democratic process. If you instead subvert the democratic process and attempt to do it in violation of existing law, then you're open for prosecution. This is, I believe, what the FBI is alledging...
--
IETF vs. FBI on CALEA (Score:5)
[begin transmission] ...OK, so if after all that, they still don't wanna build in support for CALEA into the network policies, I know! We'll just have anyone who disagrees executed for treason until the only people left alive are our supporters, and then support for CALEA will be unanimous!
Phase 1: Send up a trial balloon...
Phase 2: Bully the vendors...
Phase [CENSORED]:
[end transmission]
It's a joke, a joke you bastards! A jo
NO CARRIER
Math a belief? (Score:2)
I would tend to classify freedom of mathematics under freedom of expression, especially given my previous comment about math being a language. In any case the FBI should butt out and stick to real criminals who actually hurt people.
Communist regimes and the FBI (Score:2)
You can do anything in secret in the USA, but the principles are still the same.
Worrying worrying worrying, words I seem to be using a lot in slashdot comments at the moment.
What exactly is any of this achieving??
The investigation was six years ago (Score:5)
Back in 1991, the FBI was still probably not clear on the concept that they would be laughed out of court if they tried to interfere with international standards bodies such as the IETF --- the U.S. Government has recognized the IETF as an international standards body. Some of the quotes from the FOIA'ed file make it clear that this was the focus of their investigation:
"(blacked out)stated that he believes the PPP is legal technology. However, if the government is attempting to restrict the dissemination of authentication protocols, he believes it is too late. It is like locking the barn after the horse has escaped (per (balcked out)).... (more blacked out stuff) .... In summary, (blacked out) does not believe Simpson has engaged in breaking United States export laws regarding the export of cryptographic devices or is interested in violating such laws at the behest of a foreign power."
I very much doubt that the FBI would be wasting time with such investigations today, and certainly I would doubt that any such case would be allowed come to court --- if they tried, you can be sure that there would be plenty of support from the net, and there's a very good chance they would lose the case. Much of the current force of the export control regulations come from Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. If they let a case come to trial, there's a very good chance they could lose on first amendment grounds, and that's the last thing they would want.
Re:Under investigation != guilty (Score:2)
yebyen@adelphia.net
Re:Under investigation != guilty (Score:2)
someone reincarnate Jefferson (Score:2)
Moderate this down if you must, but I am pissed. I'm voting Libertarian from now on.
Re:Web server quality... (Score:2)
"Sorry, connection to host www.ntsecurity.net on port 80 refused."
Must be so slashdotted that Netcraft can't get through.
...phil
Re:FBI wasting its time (Score:2)
The New Red Scare (Score:2)
Where do I sign?
Isn't this a dead issue? (Score:5)
Now while I am as staunch a defender of free speech as anyone, William Simpson was under investigation for about nine months because he was in a position to potentially break U.S. export laws against exportation of strong encryption. While I may not like the fact that we have such laws, Simpson could have helped to include "unexportably" strong encryption in an internet standard that would surely be exported.
Note: I do not support restrictions on encryption, nor to I support mandated back doors. I do not support unwarrented investigations of U.S. citizens (or any other people for that matter.) However, I also do not support getting hysterical over a six-year old dead issue just because the subject has had his Freedom of Information Act request fufilled.
Re:The investigation was six years ago (Score:2)
It's also possible that this whole thing ("He's being investigated for treason because of his advocacy of strong crypto on the IETF") is another case of net.journalism jumping the proverbial gun, that there was no investigation per se, and that it's just some (admittedly spooky) stuff from the early '90s.
Furthermore, if the subject matter of the "investigation" dates back 5-6 years, consider that that crypto laws have changed dramatically (though admittedly not as dramatically as many would like!) since the early 90s.
Although the notion of encrypted PPP is regarded as an irritant ("our jobs would be easier if nobody could do this") to the Feds in 1999, the very concept probably scared the living hell ("SOMEONE WANTS TO USE SOMETHING MY BOSS SAYS IS S00PER 3733+ CRYPT0 IN WHAT?!") out of them in 1991.
Consequently, anyone advocating the inclusion of DES (remmeber when DES was the Data Encryption Standard?) in a network protocol intended for worldwide use, particularly at a stage when the FBI was no doubt several orders of magnitude less-net-clued-in than they are today would have, by definition, been regarded as a potential threat to national security.
If that theory is correct, what happened is just as wrong in 1991 as it would be in 1999, of course, but much more understandable.
Re:FBI wasting its time (Score:2)
U. S. of Y. (Score:2)
yebyen@adelphia.net
this is useless... (Score:5)
For instance, is he being investigated because of his suggestion for the inclusion of encryption in PPP, or have other things occured? That detail seems to be skimmed over and then forgotten. Like: "he advocated encryption and then he got investigated for treason..."
Did he, through his advocay, publish PGP or other software on his website for download to non-US citizens? If yes, then, well, as stupid as everyone thinks it is, he would have broken the law. Note, that that's pure speculation. But I honestly don't our government would waste the resources to investigate someone for treason because of a suggestion! Let's be a little more realistic, please. There have to be other factors at work...
And if there are, we need to know what they are before we go "oh, evil FBI cracks down on innocent ciziten joe...". It's too easy to jump to a conclusion - one way or the other - without presentation of all the facts.
If my very slight hypothesis is correct, and there were other factors at work aside from his suggestion, then i'll go on to say that if you don't like a law, you can't just go break it and say it's okay because it's a dumb law. You need to get it changed. Vote. Voice yourself. But don't try to be a martyr unless you're sure it will work right.
This is OLD NEWS. This happened YEARS AGO. (Score:3)
Since PPP has been around for quite a while, this means this particular investigation is quite old. People are talking like it's directly related to the Y2K movie thing that recently happened and was reported on here.
I think we should all take a step back from this and relax.
...phil
Re:Nah, they weren't serious (off-topic) (Score:2)
He may be thinking of the IRS denying the Christian Coalition's application for tax-exempt status, but, frankly, I see no evidence that the CC necessarily speaks for all Christians (unless you limit "Christians" to those who believe as the CC does, but, as far as I can tell, that'd leave out rather a lot of people who think Jesus was the son of God, and, frankly, that's the criterion I use for determining whether somebody's a Christian). Perhaps they were unfairly denied tax-exempt status, but I hardly consider that sufficient grounds to argue that Christians are, in general, being persecuted....
Now, I suspect there are some other Christians who've been investigated, harassed, etc. as a result of actions they've taken as a result of being inspired by their faith; I'm curious whether the CC, or other "religious right" organizations, would stand up for the rights of Christians who've protested against US involvement in, say, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, various civil wars throughout the globe, or against US nuclear weapons, or against the School of the Americas, or....
(I'm also curious how eager they - or the original poster - would be to defend the rights of, say, non-believers such as me. I seem to remember a claim that the father of the leading Republican presidential candidate wasn't certain whether non-believers could be considered citizens of the US - blah blah blah "nation under God" blah blah blah. Then again, alluding back to earlier US actions, he was the same man who, when VP, praised Fernando Marcos' "adherence to democratic principles"....)
Re:Basis for investigation (Score:2)
What, they had little microphones, ntc's and lightsensitive diodes on the bloody thing? Come on people, I don't expect perfect english from anyone, especially those who do not have english as their first language, but I draw the line when it starts to take other meanings...
(Before anyone feels the need to state this: I realise sreeram is innocent he just cut and pasted it, this criticism is meant for whoever wrote the article)
Re:Now it starts... (Score:2)
Well, I might looking for a new job if my boss says I'm a screw up. Where I work, the managers and supervisors back us up all the way until the problem is solved.
I have always enjoyed free speech. Others may have not. My mom marched in the civil rights parades in Los Angleles before I was born and that got her investigated, kicked out of church, etc. Makes me proud.
I saw a movie over the weekend called "The Informant" that showed how easily the FBI can become corrupted. If the FBI ever investigates me, I would be honored. It is my belief that I am insignificant and an average boring person. Don't do drugs, commit acts of terrorism (unlike the FBI,) or upset my neighbors or employer. I'm not worth enough to my employer to be investigated anyway (it would be a total waste of taxpayer money!)
Re:Under investigation != guilty (Score:2)
A lot depends on the crime they are being "investigated" for - PZ's reputation didn't suffer in the long term - in fact, he became pretty much a celebrity due to the harassment. The "crime" he is accused of (and I haven't seen the site as it is
--
Re:What the hell? (Score:3)
Re:Export controls through PH33R! (Score:2)
Take a drive along hwy 375 on the north side of the Nevada Test Site (I live in Vegas and have driven by the site on my way to Tonopah). Any vehicles not rolling down the highway attract the black helicopters (choppers with no lights, no identifying marks, no transponder beacon, and several missiles and a 20mm cannon). I pulled over to take a leak and within a few minutes here comes this black helicopter up over the ridge that stops and hovers over me. I zip up and walk back toward the car and the chopper moves on. Fucking scary shit. There's probably a photograph of me holding my dick behind a yellow stream on file at some three latter agancy now. You may not believe in the black helicopters, but I'll never forget 'em.
Re:Under investigation != guilty (Score:2)
In the short term, certainly. In the longer term, I suspect the FBI will drop this one too, as more trouble than it is worth and may well only serve the purpose of distracting us from the 'Y2K riot' Videos until after the celebrations
--
Slashdot extaggerates headlines again! (Score:2)
Now, this is still a bad thing. But it's not nearly as bad as it sounds.
* Vectro steps down from his soapbox.
Re:You speak treason? (Score:2)
adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
An another poster mentioned that in the U.S. strong crypto is considered a munition, i.e. something that would be useful in time of war. If this guy advocated giving this "weapon" to all comers (which would include enemies of the state) then he is very much "giving them Aid and Comfort". I still don't agree with it (the actions of the FBI or the crypto classification) but then again I don't deal with issues of national security on a daily basis and, as such, have no basis for profound paranoia.
Re:Interesting Posters (Score:2)
And it's not in any way inconsistent to be an advocate of reducing the size of the federal government and at the same time an advocate of protecting the civil liberties of individuals. In fact, this position is very defensible, as those very civil liberties tend to be more commonly disregarded by the US government than by any other organization. Of course, when the US government does trample our rights, it's generally claimed to be necessary in order to protect us from terrorists and child pornographers.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
I think you're confusing authority (which is granted essentially arbitrarily) with smarts.Even assuming that they are smart, I never gave my consent to be governed by a secret organization of smart people without due process of law or judicial oversight, which is what you seem to be advocating.
In case you've forgotten, the government similarly abused their authority and power to harrass the hell out of Phil Zimmerman (author of PGP), but ultimately didn't press any charges. Despite not pressing charges, they succeeded in making his life a living hell for several years and making him spend a huge amount of money on legal fees. This is likely what they intend to do to Bill Simpson if they choose to pursue it.
That the FBI considers the mere advocacy of the deployment of strong cryptography to be treasonous scares the shit out of me. We seem to be well on our way to Perry Metzger's Ruritania [brouhaha.com].
Lawyer: it's also patently false (Score:2)
Somebody needs to tell those folks that if you're going to invent stories to make yourself look like a victim, invent plausible ones. This one's a couple of steps behind black helicopters . . .
Re:this is useless... (Score:2)
Just ask the victims of the House Committee on Un-American Activites, victims of Senator Joseph McCarthy, or all those poor hippies who were investigated in the 60's for protesting peacefully against the war in Vietnam.
Democracy? Doublespeak!
You forgot "enemy" (Score:3)
Korea was a "police action". Vietnam wasn't even that - just a response to an "incident". Desert Storm and the like were UN actions for which we provided aid.
We aren't at war unless war has been declared - which takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate. We don't have "enemies" within the meaning of the Treason definition unless we are at war.
That's why Jane Fonda is still at large, despite her visit to, and propaganda for, North Vietnam during the Vietnam Hootenany.
Now it only takes one side to "levy war", so don't try nuking DC. But until a war is declared you can give aid and comfort to anyone you want. You might be breaking laws. But you aren't committing Treason.
But if you do something the current operators of the government dislike, don't be surprised if members of the Executive Branch harass you. Governments generally have a dismal record when it comes to getting their employees to actually obey or correctly interpret their own laws.
Re:someone reincarnate Jefferson (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Export controls through PH33R! (Score:2)
Study up on the difference between can and may.
The military most certainly maynot kill civilians in times if peace, unless certain conditions are met, however that in no way makes the military incapable (as in cannot) if killing. After all, accidents happen.
No, paranoia is NOT a mental condition, it's a lifestyle.