Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Encryption Security

Reno Against Easing Crypto Export Laws 140

Posted by CmdrTaco from the big-shocks dept.
ChuckRoast writes "Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh, on behalf of the Clinton Administration, are objecting to legislation that aims to decontrol encryption because it makes their job tougher. Go figure. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reno Against Easing Crypto Export Laws More

Reno Against Easing Crypto Export Laws

Comments Filter:
  • From the
    Tasty Bits from the Technology Front http://tbtf.com/archive/1999-07-08.html

    ..US admits crypto export controls are about signals intelligence

    Fighting a losing battle to keep Echelon relevant

    In its petition for a re-hearing of the Bernstein case [18], the Jus-
    tice Department admits, for the first time, that the true goal of US
    export controls on cryptography is to preserve the country's ability
    to gather SIGINT. The petition is refreshingly free of the incend-
    iary cant about stopping pedophiles and drug dealers that federal
    authorities customarily emit as rationale for the ever-more-dubious
    controls.

    > The government's foreign intelligence-gathering activities
    > include signals intelligence (SIGINT), the collection and
    > analysis of information from foreign electromagnetic signals.
    > The SIGINT capabilities of the United States can be signifi-
    > cantly compromised by the use of encryption

    http://jya.com/bernstein-pet.htm

    "... and what is the use of a book," thought Alice, "without pictures or conversations?"




  • I'd argue that the goverment has accomplished something, they've prevented millions of "normal" US users from using strong encryption. Most Americans aren't going to jump through the ridiculous hoops to get the 128-bit versions of Netscape or IE, and don't know about things like Fortify [fortify.net]. I believe this is the real goal of the export controls, and if so it has succeeded very well. If strong encryption were allowed to become ubiquitous it would be transparently built into email software (yes, you can do it now, but it takes work), supported at the OS level, and virtually all communication would be encrypted. And then our favorite three letter agencies couldn't use their wiretapping systems to spy on innocent Americans...um, I mean, to protect the children.
  • It's called steganography: "data hiding". As opposed to encryption, which scrambles data in an unpredictable pattern, steganography is about burying important data inside "harmless" data.

    A lot of simple steganography is done through image files: the hidden data is written in a watermark across the image by slightly altering pixel values in a given pattern.

    I used to be subscribed to a steganography mailing list... don't know if it's still around. You can find code for embedding data in images around the Net.

    MJP
  • Just because the USA desides to restrict it does not mean that it will automagicly delete it self from all the servers outside the USA.

    It's what happens when our (I'm American) leaders are crackbabies. No offense to the intelligent crackbabies intended, I know there are some. Just not in US GOV.
  • Unfortunately, George W. Bush is even worse when it comes to Internet issues. He got upset when someone made a parody [gwbush.com] of his own site, and took legal action against them. He called in the FEC, more than once.

    Is this really someone you want to be in charge of the country? Do you really think he'll favor the rights of Internet users over law enforcement? Don't fool yourself.

    Here's the details [gwbush.com]. I'm very surprised we didn't see anything about this on Slashdot.

    Until recently, I knew almost nothing about George Bush Jr. I must say, the more I see, the more I think he's only popular because people don't know anything about him. Scary-- anti-choice, homophobic, pro-corporate in just about everything. If anyone knows anything good about him, please let us know.

    Don't forget about third parties! There's lots more candidates than just the Republicrats.

  • Only outlaws will have guns.

    Similarly, when commercial encryption products are outlawed, criminals will simply hire some hacker (I believe that's correct, as they'd actually be coding, vs. a cracker, who would.... Well... Crack.)
  • ... now that Al Gore, inventor of the Internet and Mind-slave to the Clintons, is running for prez
  • China and other countries can learn all our nuclear secrets and things like that with the laws in place, why bother keeping them? DOWN WITH THE EXPORT LAWS!

  • One would think that such "seasoned bureaucrats" would welcome such an opportunity to request large amounts of additional funding! After all, they can just turn around and blame congress for being "soft on crime".
  • Where is to logic in this?

    Strong encryption code and binaries are both available from a lot of http/ftp sites all over the world.

    Just because the USA desides to restrict it does not mean that it will automagicly delete it self from all the servers outside the USA.

  • There are no legitimate law enforcement or national security concerns. Janet Reno did not provide one shred of evidence. She just pointed out some vague scenario that has no basis in reality. It's not even clear that the position she was taking would've prevented the scenario she described.

  • I have read a couple things recently (one was a recent article on slashdot) that have indicated that the 'authorities,' in the USA at least, have been very unsuccessful at getting any useful information out of confiscated computers, even without crypto. They just don't know how to find the info among the other crap on the computer. Wanna make it so that they really can't find your stuff? Just bury it in a directory along with a few thousand half scrambled copies of the anarchist's cookbook, some phone phreaking texts, and other legal but suspicious info. If you do it well, it would seem that there's a significant chance that the 'authorities' wouldn't be able to sift the stuff you're hiding from the other crap.

    Who needs 128 bit crypto when you can have a haystack for free?
    Who needs to restrict crypto when the restrictions do absolutely nothing, even when nobody breaks them?
    Why perpetuate the ineffectual restrictions when they're hurting your own domsetic businesses?
  • This is the same Janet Reno who turned down a request to look at the computer files of a suspected Chinese gov't spy at a nuclear weapons lab (the only denial of such as request during her tenure) at the same time her boss Bill was pocketing millions in illegal Chinese gov't campaign contributions. She's got bigger problems than crypto.
  • As far as anyone can tell, this is not about chasing terrorists - since really determined computing - especially with cluster computing or specially designed hardware, the (theoretical) effectiveness of which was recently confirmed by an RSA - can crack good encryption in short order if needed - it's really about being able to scan digital communications on a massive scale. File this one under my middle finger, spooks. Unfortunately, you crypto monkeys actively aid and abet those who would keep us naked by insisting that 24-bit encryption is as bad as none. Hooey. If everyone used even minimal encryption, the ability of the spook machines to scan and index every e-mail all would be vastly compromised; that is why they continuously support encryption regulation. It provides them a very minimal edge over the mad bombers, but the result is that the rest of us live in glass houses, too. Shame on cryptophiles for encouraging strength while neglecting use; support ******MAD******* use of even weak encryption!!!!!!!
  • I support nearly anything that makes jobs like Reno's and Freeh's harder--it's a sign that we still have some rights.
    ---
    Put Hemos through English 101!
  • Janet Reno et al. do not make theses policies.
    They come from up from the DOJ and FBI staff.
    One has to assume that these people already
    know that U.S. policies will have little effect
    on the global availability of encryption
    technologies. So what is the real story here...
    what is it that leaves them so worried.

    I personally believe that they would like to
    hinder the whole encryption industry as much
    as possible. Limiting sales to the U.S. makes
    the whole business unattractive and helps
    slow wide spread adoption of encrypted
    communications. This in turn reduces the
    volume of encrypted traffic they have to
    deal with. Volume is important because they
    are reading everything.

    There is a lot of evidence (I.E. the recent reports from the EU) that they
    are particularly interested in commercial
    traffic. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe most commercial encryption is still DES. Adoption of a new standard (one not designed by them) might upset things a little bit

  • Janet Reno et al. do not make theses policies.
    They come from up from the DOJ and FBI staff.
    One has to assume that these people already
    know that U.S. policies will have little effect
    on the global availability of encryption
    technologies. So what is the real story here...
    what is it that leaves them so worried.

    I personally believe that they would like to
    hinder the whole encryption industry as much
    as possible. Limiting sales to the U.S. makes
    the whole business unattractive and helps
    slow wide spread adoption of encrypted
    communications. This in turn reduces the
    volume of encrypted traffic they have to
    deal with. Volume is important because they
    are reading everything.

    There is a lot of evidence (I.E. the recent reports from the EU) that they
    are particularly interested in commercial
    traffic. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe most commercial encryption is still DES.
    Adoption of a new standard (one not designed by them) might upset things a little bit

  • uh... (Score:1)

    by delmoi ( 26744 )
    theres no reason to think that story is real, as of now do you have any links that *arn't* on the same page that he was supposedly trying to shut down?
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • well, there's been an exsport restriction on encryption for several years now... so they've goten somewhere... these poeple sit at the highest levels of power in our contry, and we should be wary of there every jerk off...
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • A few weeks ago, the 9th circuit upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the export ban on encryption based on 1st amendment reasons. The governement is appealing, so the ruling isn't in effect yet, and it is expected to go to the Supreme Court. The cental issue in the case is whether source code is "expression" in 1st amendment terms. The feds say it isn't.

    Read more at the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org]
  • I'm sorry, I'm having a _LOT_ of trouble figuring out where the hell he said life is pointless.

    Hmmm, could it be that he didn't and you are just knee jerking from his comments? I think so.

    There are a lot better arguements for why life is "sacred" and you missed all of them.

  • I'll still vote for him over Gore any day of the week, ...

    OK, I'm curious about this. From your post, you share some of the same values as me, but I can't fathom what is better about Bush. So I'm asking sincerely, what is? I have problems with Gore, but Bush seems the far worse of the two evils, on every issue I find out about, Internet or otherwise.

    Why do people hate Gore so much that they'd vote for anyone instead of him? I mean, things like homophobia are pretty scary if you're gay or have any friends that are (and almost everyone does, even if they're not aware of it).

    If you're not already, make sure you register to vote as a non-Democrat, non-Republican. You probably know there are many other options. The more we do this now, the sooner we WILL get real options.

  • I'm surely not the only one here to notice that the FBI's position on encryption controls, like Microsoft's position on Linux, is self contradictory. Too bad I'm preaching to the choir here.

    On the one hand, the FBI asserts that terrorists are already using encryption to great effect to thwart investigators. On the other hand, the FBI maintains that easing current controls would increase terrorist use of encryption. But their own words belie the truth. Criminals and terrorists are already using technically unbreakable encryption. Legal controls on encryption will have absolutely no effect on the FBI's efforts to pursue criminals. The criminals will use encryption even if it is outlawed.

    The only logical conclusion to draw from the FBI statements is that the FBI wants restrictions on encryption, not because they want to spy on criminals, but because they want to spy on law abiding citizens. It is a truth that many in this community figured out a long time ago.

  • One hypothesis that could be forwarded is that by preventing export of strong export of crypto the only gain is a lack of encrypted international traffic. Combine this with the recent news of eschelon and everything makes sense.

    This rests on a very shaky assumption: That the rest of the world are willing to give up their security so that they can use American software. And I don't think that is much more than a patriotic wet dream with those who come up with such restrictions.

    The only parties hampered by the laws are American software firms and those doomed to exchange encrypted data with American partners.

    "IndiaSoft are proud to present their latest 2048-bit encryption plugin to Microsoft Exchange." :-)

  • It isn't about terrorism, drugs, child pornography or money laundering. Those are just convenient explanations for the DOJ/FBI agenda.

    If I was a terrorist, I wouldn't be encrypting anything on a computer. I would use pencil, paper and a one time pad. Pencils don't have TEMPEST problems.

    The FBI and NSA are working hard to keep strong and easy to use crypto out of the hands of ordinary citizens. Why don't we have strong crypto in the new digital cellular/PCS systems? The NSA made sure that only weak crypto or no crypto was designed into these systems.

    The NSA doesn't want anything that will impair the effectiveness of Echelon.

    The FBI doesn't want anything that will impair their ability to run wiretaps.

    Clinton doesn't give a shit about civil liberties or the Constitution. Neither do many members of Congress.

  • uh, people in the middle east are arab
    people in africa are black
    you are an idiot
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Look at Netscape/Microsoft -- they weren't able to export 128-bit versions of their browsers for years because of munitions export laws. Non-US-developed "wrappers" for Netscape Navigator/MS Internet Explorer shortly popped up, however, giving the 40-bit export versions of the browsers nearly the same functionality as the 128-bit versions. Who got screwed? Netscape and MS. Who accomplished nothing? The US government.

    no your wrong... how many people do you know who installed the 'wrapper' how many people do you know who bother to download US only versions (there's more to it then clicking 'yes I'm a US citizen').

    so.. *most* people aren't using strong encryption. No one in the US bothers to try and make strong crypto code, because distributing it would be a pain in the ass. As a result most people in the US don't even *use* any encryption, so the government is free to do whatever it wants. How many people do you know who use non-US software? (not counting the linux kernel, to bad Torvlads is in the US now, and can't put strong crypto in... :) I'd be willing to bet not many.

    I think that's there whole plan, they can't *crack* crypto, and they know they can't *really* stop it from being put in the hands of 'intelegent' criminals. All they can do is slow it down.

    Can you imagen what where the internet would be right now as far as the use of encription could be right now if it wern't for the US's exsport restrictions? My guess is that it would be a lot farther along then it is right now. They know what there doing, I think.

    Of couse, they say you should never atribute to mallice what can be acounted for by stupidity.....
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • I want to bomb a federal building, but I need to tell my compatriot where the bomb is. I can't tell him without strong encryption because it might incriminate him. But I can't use strong encryption because it is (God help me) illegal.

    Uh.. Janet Reno... You're stupid.

    Whether it is legal or not it's NOT GOING TO STOP A TERRORIST! It will only hurt the honest uses for encryption.
  • I don't know much about Bush, but Gore's wife Tipper is extremely active in pro-censorship organizations - I believe she was behind the "Parental Advisory" labels on CDs.

    Aside from that, Gore's rabidly anti-technology book Earth in the Balance is required reading before making up your mind about him.

    D

    ----
  • heh:
    it's like coke or pepsi when all you really want is a fast, unfilterd internet connection...
    All Gore:............... 27% Pat Buchanan:........... 16% A bullet to the brain:.. 57%
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Hooey on THAT. A sufficiently strong algorithm with a 1024-bit key is not currently breakable by ANYTHING - the FBI has a much easier solution in this case, commonly referred to as "Rubber-Hose Cryptanalysis." It's a lot easier for them to beat your pass phrase out of you or your recipient, frankly. The spooks support encryption export controls because they want to retain the ability to spy on other countries - good ole nationalism at work, not because they want to scan your neighbor's e-mail. Terrorism is a relatively minimal factor in their interests.

    Nevermind that other countries are perfectly capable of coming up with strong crypto on their own, and HAVE already done so, making the government look exactly like the farmer closing the gate after the goats are gone.

    24-bit encryption isn't just as "bad" as none, it's WORSE than none, because the parties involved believe it's effective. Widespread use of token (40-bit) encryption would be nice...but if every software company out there with an E-mail product were able to, overnight, produce and auto-apply a 100% effective no-bugs patch that would add an "Encrypt this message?" option to EVERYTHING ... people still wouldn't use it. Because it requires another password. And people are, when it comes down to it, LAZY! L-A-Z-Y. They just want to send a dirty joke to their brother Bob in Nevada. The average bear's skull simply is not equipped with the wetware to realize that when he encrypts his dirty joke to Bob, he is providing additional security for himself and everyone else down the line - he can't see beyond the here and now, and so he mashes "no" to that prompt and bitches about how paranoid people are becoming.

    We could waste a lot of time evangelizing to Joe and Bob Schmuck about this kind of thing... but when you get right down to it, having everyone use breakable crypto is just another case of 'security through obscurity', which has been shown to fail. Miserably. Consistently. So all us l'il crypto-monkeys would rather talk to y'all out there who AREN'T lazy, in the hopes of actually accomplishing SOMETHING. It will spread more slowly... but where it spreads, it will take root and grow.

    (I won't even address the fact that scanning digital communications encrypted with a 24-bit key poses no significant slowdown factor for the hardware you mention. Vastly compromised? Doubt it.)
  • Gore's wife Tipper is extremely active in pro-censorship organizations - I believe she was behind the "Parental Advisory" labels on CDs.

    She was indeed. It was the Parent's Music Resource Coalition (PMRC), which I really despised when it happened, because I was involved in underground radio. It did get Frank Zappa testifying to Congress, though. :)

    But seriously, I don't like her either, for this. Such censorship is normally the domain of the right wing, with its close ties to fundamentalists. I wouldn't vote against Gore in favor of someone even more censoring!

    Gore's rabidly anti-technology book Earth in the Balance is required reading before making up your mind about him.

    Haven't read it, but I've heard it's more pro-environment and be-careful-with-technology, rather than "rabidly anti-technology". I've always supported appropriate use of technology, but I think we *do* need to be careful what we're doing, and to not ignore obvious environmental data (like global warming). Ecology is very scientific. Unfortunately, companies value short-term profits far more than the ecology, and we all suffer.

    I'm making wild assumptions here, because I haven't read the book. But based on what Gore's said before, he's pro-environmentalist (which I think is a good thing), and also pro-technology. He was, after all, promoting the "information superhighway" back in the early 90's, which was after we knew about it but long before most people did. Very few people had even heard the word "Internet" (remember then?), and Gore was talking about wiring all schools and homes.

  • The logic behind it is that it has nothing to do with Terrorists, the Mafia, or the Chinese. Anyone that determined can get their own crypto system as it is, and not even the American Government is stupid enough to think they can stop them.

    In reality it is just a huge FUD campaign against the whole Crypto technology. By passing a bunch of confusing and unenforceable laws they are slowing/destroying the standardization of strong public-key crypto techniques and development of key distribution systems etc.

    Face it, the FBI, NSA,CIA, Justice Department, have been spying on YOU, the American people, for years. Loosing that ability because Crypto is widely accepted is what they are afraid of, not terrorists.
  • and the American equivalent. That's the only reason they don't like crypto. If the US Govt really wants to get at what you're doing, they will. Forget crypto, just use Van Ecks/TEMPEST and grab everything off the monitors. Or just bug their house.

    The fine line between security and fascism is simple: is it automated? Cause I don't really care what the govt' intercepts as long as they have to go through each and every message by hand. Let them. It's when they hook it up to an automated system that makes it easy and convenient to break our civil liberties that you have to watch out.

  • "Libertarians feel strongly about not limiting research and development in areas like genetic research, cloning, cryptography and the Internet."

    quote from Libertarian.org [libertarian.org]

    Look, neither major party is going to be pro-crypto because crypto reduces the power of the government to control people's lives. Neither the Republican or Democratic Party wants this. If you are sick of this Hobson's choice (between Republicans and Democrats), vote Libertarian. I'm going to vote Libertarian for the first time this year. Even if you aren't 100% pro-Libertarian ideas... think how much a significant Libertarian victory would shake up the oligarchs in DC.
  • HMMMmmmmmmm...

    It is my understanding that the FBI operates within the borders of the US and its territories, while the CIA conducts operations outside those borders. This line is clearly defined.

    How is it that EXPORTING encryption can make the FBI's job harder if it's scope isn't supposed to expand beyond our borders? Am I wrong about the previous distinction, or is the FBI illegally conducting operations abroad?

    Even in cases where we have American soil somewhere else (embassies), the US Marines or State Dept. take care of securtity. The FBI would be wasting their time and probably breaking any number of laws by monitoring the communications of foriegn nationals in this situation.

    This seems more like an NSA thing to me than something the FBI would want. US citizens have strong crypto. The FBI has no legal business abroad (I think...let me know if I'm wrong). Why do they even care about Exports??

    The fact is that the FBI can't STOP terrorist acts. You can speak in code on a pay phone and they wouldn't even think to listen in until you did something terrible. Why would any net-savvy international terrorist use email anyway, when they know they'll be leaving copies all over the net on the way to the destination. And some idiot on the other end could leave the plaintext on his drive. An anonymous phone call to some other anonymous person leaves no copies. RE...probably more secure anyway (if you talk in code or something...there always IS echelon) The reasonable explanation for weak crypto is to gather evidence after the fact. Export controls DON'T save lives, they just make for craftier terrorists.

    International terrorists who commit acts of terror within the US are going to buy crypto here legally, and give it to their friends abroad regardless of the law.

    It seems that the FBI likes to be able to imprision anyone who wants to send a secure message to mom back in the old country about dad's surprise birthday party. So if we can't find the REAL perpetrators of a terrorist act, they still get to arrest and charge any immigrant with a net connection and blame him. This way, Jan, Lou and the Prez (whoever's in office at the time) still get to look good on the TV news.

    Meanwhile...we're losing lots of money in international markets.

    anyway...tell me if I said something we all don't know already.

    dan
  • Yep. The FBI does operate outside the US, mainly in a "consulting" capacity. See:
    http://www.info-sec.com/law/law_021998a.html-ssi (teaching Australian police profiling techniques)

    http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/09/02/intl /intl.2.html (about the FBI investigating the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia)

    http://www4.zdnet.com/intweek/print/980309/29387 2.html (FBI targets offshore betting sites - not the users!)

    http://www.nandotimes.com/nt/special/freeh0821.h tml (FBI agents and Kenyan police, meanwhile, raided the Nairobi offices of a Saudi Arabian charity, the Mercy International Relief Agency, in connection with the bombing, hauling away documents, computers and cash, an employee said Friday.)


    http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/JudithAlltop/War.ht ml (Executive Order No. 12333 also asserts the President's right to authorize CIA "special activities" (the official euphemism for covert operations) and has legally sanctioned such activities anywhere "in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad." It legalizes "counterintelligence activities...within the United States" on the part of the FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. "Specialized equipment, technical knowledge, or assistance of expert personnel may be provided by any of these agencies "to support local law enforcement." All are free to mount electronic and mail surveillance without a warrant, and the FBI may also conduct warrantless "unconsented physical searches" (break-ins) if the Attorney General finds probable cause to believe the action is "directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.")

    IIRC, there are also many instances of the FBI working with European law enforcement, but I think these samples prove the FBI works outside the US. I can dig up more cases of the CIA working domestically if necessary.

    In short, don't believe law enforcement is obeying the law!

  • Good call, I'm 18, and able to vote in my first presidential election this coming year. I'm going to vote Libertarian, not because I expect such a candidate to win, but because Libertarians are the *only* party to have a sensible and well-defined high-tech related policies. I think its quite possible that a few districts may elect a Libertarian congressman for next term. After all we already have a socialist :-) Yay libertarians!

    Spyky
  • Reno is not a commie, 'mericans have no idea what communist means, they just label any politics they don't understand that way, because they have been trained to think of politics as 100% black/white issues.

    This situation is a perfect example of the defectiveness of the round-robin dictatorship that is in place in the US.

    What if your current dictator is acting as it is because it wants to make it easier for the NSA to spy on non-US companies so their US competitors can get their hands on their technology and contracts.

    It has happened before you know, so maybe reno is just trying to help ineffective US companies afloat by stealing trade-secrets from non-us companies...

  • Government officials, and in particular, law-enforcement officials, are not the people you want to turn to in order to preserve personal freedoms. Such freedoms tend to be an inconvenience to these people.

    Freedoms are preserved by institutions that help prevent their encroachment. The Internet can certainly be such an institution. Democratic government might not be such an institution, in that anyone can vote to have their own freedom or someone else's impaired.

  • Someone really needs to put this whole issue into terms that the American people can understand, ASAP. For Example:

    "Basically, encryption is the equivlent of an envlope. Right now, e-mail is like a post-card, anyone who want's to read it can when it's on it's way to the person you sent it to.

    What we should be able to do is have some small sence that only the intended reciepent get's to open the letter, not your internet providor, or any computer cracker that want's to take a peak. Encryption is basically our electronic envlope for email.

    Even with encryption, if someone manages to open your letters, you won't have hard evidance that they did, because the recipent won't be able to see the tear in the envlope.

    But as of today, the US government is saying that we can only send post cards across the border, your not allowed to use the electronic envlopes, because they want to read all of it."

  • Also, the FBI (not the CIA as some might suppose) is responsible for domestic counter-terrorism. To prevent terrorist acts or investigate them after the fact may require cooperation with other governments and other foreign activites.

    So, if the goal of combating terrorism is actually a valid point (which it isn't), this position makes perfect sense.

  • My gun is a tool. I use it to turn off my lights, to turn off other appliences, open my can of beer . . .

    bye
  • another good thing is he is really old and may die soon



  • Reno is not a commie, 'mericans have no idea what communist means, they just label any politics they don't understand that way, because they have been trained to think of politics as 100% black/white issues.

    This situation is a perfect example of the defectiveness of the round-robin dictatorship that is in place in the US.

    What if your current dictator is acting as it is because it wants to make it easier for the NSA to spy on non-US companies so their US competitors can get their hands on their technology and contracts.

    It has happened before you know, so maybe reno is just trying to help ineffective US companies afloat by stealing trade-secrets from non-us companies...

    Oh well, I guess this is pretty much the same as when my country makes bribes in 3'rd world contries (like the US) tax-deductable:)

  • Re: The Constitution vs. Common Law (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ahhhh, the constitution. Constitutional law is ever-evolving, precident and all that. But let's look at some fun and perhaps even relevant cases!

    First Ammendment: Unless the government serves the paper in question with an order not to publish any said information, it's not prior restraint, and thus not censorship. But if the stuff in question is vital to national security (which is what the gov't seems to be claiming, as you pointed out in re: ammendment 2), it still can be censored assuming the feds can make a case for it (New York Times vs. US '71). This, admittedly, is rather tough to accomplish. (For more fun and lack of precident, check out US v. The Progressive. Fun with publishing nuke plans!)

    Second Ammendment: US v. Miller '39. Gov't can limit how powerful of weapons you have, so if it is classified as a weapon, they can certainly pull it away.

    Fourth Ammendment:Ahh, but eschleon covered international communications! See, the supreme court made wiretapping without judicial approval illegal in 1972 (US v. US district court) for people suspected of DOMESTIC subversion... I'd think the law would get tricky when you start pulling the international scene in. And yeah, the McVeigh (not that one) thing sucks, but that's problematic because the military shouldn't have called and AOL shouldn't have told them. But there's no real 4th ammendment issue -- AOL chose to give up the goods.

    Fifth Ammendment That would probably be a state crime, and it wasn't until 1964 (Malloy v Hogan) that it was illegal for a STATE (as opposed to federal gov) to make someone testify. Again, win some rights, lose some rights. Public key stuff hasn't really been tested in court as far as I know... My question is, can a private key property that could be subpoena'd? I was under the impression that if you had, say a tape of you committing a crime that could be acquired by the court. But it's not my field so I really wouldn't know.

    That said, I am by no means a lawyer. I'm just a comm guy who had to take some undergrad law courses and memorize a bunch of rulings.
  • Please stop using inaccurate analogies, guns have one purpose; killing.

    There is absolutely NO non-violent use for guns, crypto however have plenty of legitimate uses.

    The only country in the world where handguns are acceptable is the us (well apart from the law-less banna-republics) so please try to stop using gun-analogies, they fail with the largest part of your audience.
  • As it's been noted in above articles already,even FBI and the attorneys office admit that criminals and terrorists are already using strong crypto to evade the law (and who wouldn't, it's too easy to get hold of and one would be stupid not to use it if one were a criminal).

    So, the real reason for their stand on the crypto issue is simple, they even imply it in the newsprints: It makes it harder for them to do their work.

    Now, considering that the criminals they're supposed to catch are already using strong crypto, then how can it make their work "more difficult"?

    Because their job is not to catch criminals, but to:

    • Spy on foreign commercial entities (i.e. industrial espionage)
    • Spy on any citizen they wish without getting a proper warrant for it (i.e. wiretapping)
    • Not to hire zillions of pro crypto people and bleed through their noses for it (i.e. additional budget cuts in some other sectors)

    It's that simple, really. Wake up and smell the coffee. Your government is using crypto only as a tool to gain a competitive advantage on other foreign nations in the battle of global commerce.

    rgds: An anon bstrd

    PS It is extremely hilarious to read this board when a lot of people use the word "communist" as the worst possible derogatory term. I think you've been watching too many "educational" films from the 50's and not honing your critical thinking abilities enough. I think you should travel around the world and read a few books.

  • Guns have two purposes, killing, and intimidation. Which is more deadly?
  • A friend of mine just started working for the DOJ in the area of crypto laws. Here's what I sent him (along with the article):

    I'm really concerned about these terrorists. Do you realize that, at THIS VERY MOMENT, someone, somewhere is selling US-made guns and bullets to a terrorist, and that we can't do anything about it?

    We should ban the export of guns and bullets. Really bad things might happen if these US-made guns and bullets fell into the hands of the wrong people. Now before you start thinking that this is a radical idea, I just want to point out that I'm not calling for an outright ban on the manufacture of guns and bullets in this country, just their export. After all, no one else in the world knows how to make US-made guns and bullets, no American citizen would *ever* sell US-made guns
    and bullets to terrorists surreptitiously, and no graduate students from fundamentalist Islamic nations who return home after school ever learn the secrets of making US-made guns and bullets. So an export ban on US-made guns and bullets is really a foolproof measure.

    Now we wouldn't need to be so extreme about this if the firearms industry would cooperate. All they need to do is to modify their products ever so slightly, to incorporate radio transmitters which let the government trace any guns or bullets that they suspect are being used for evil purposes.

    Could you please talk to Janet about this?

    One last thing: GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A SINGLE FUNCTIONING NEURON IN YOUR BRAIN!
  • Whould anyone wote for me? I whould remove these stupid export laws the first day in office. I whould also try to fight this "USA must be the imperial world police" mentality. I'm currently trying to find ways to get rid of this religous-legasy that does nothig but harm. The last bit seems really difficult sice "GOD" appears to be wery important to many americans. If i have any time left over i'll open the CIA-archives so people can see what these guys were really up to back in the "good old days" of the cold war.

    Plaese don't moderate this as off topic, having someone _else_ to vote for is the only way to influence the established politians who get _dumb ideas_.
    (you might or might not see a tcfp.webprovider.com in the future).

  • If you had a say in what your taxes go to then it wouldn't be called tax, would it?

  • My favourite quote: ``[Elizabeth Kaufman of Cisco] said that even with the decontrol legislation, industry is willing to work with government on a way to give law enforcement access to unscrambled data without compromising the customer's security.'' Say what? How does that work, exactly? Isn't law enforcement access to unscrambled data by definition a compromise of customer security?

  • Take sentences out of context and you'll get that. But then this comparison, AFAIR was at
    a rabidly right wing site... so go figgur.
  • Sorry to nag, but the clarity of your analogy (a good one, BTW) is destroyed by your horrible use of apostrophes n' other grammar.

    Want's = Belonging to someone named Want (Want L. Smith)

  • It's already too late. Both PGP and GPG are available internationally. SSL for browsers and other types of TCP connections is avialable internationally. PGP is available in Win95/98/NT versions with a plugin for the default Outlook Express mail client that used by most clueless newbies. All a criminal needs to be able to do is complete a standard Win9x-style program donlaod and install, then take one extra step; send the resulting public key to his partners in crime.

    Any criminal with enough sense to look into encryption will be able to do this, anywhere in the industrial world. But the NSA and FBI's priomary interest in stalling/preventing encryption is that it makes it much, much harder to routinely scan lots of communications for keywords and extract bits and pieces; bits and pieces that would be assembled later into the "Big Picture". Routine encryption would all be prevent that. That's why they're screaming and kicking.

    But they will be dragged into this. Because as soon as you pose the question in terms the aveage unwaired individual can understand, they immediately object to anyone, especially the government, being able to eavesdrop on communications that they intend to keep private.

    With every passing year the U.S. export regs get closer to being overcome by events.
  • Nope, I can't find the logic in this either. All the stuff they tell us on TV and in the papers is designed for children. Historically, that has been sufficient.

    I have completely abandoned cryptography in favor of development projects that don't have to be locked in a vault. Meanwhile, in countries far away, cryptographers advance the art steadily, secure in the knowlege that there'll be no competition coming from the powerhouse of software development, the United States.

    The penumbra of our policy extends to many other areas where cryptography is only a feature, not the central function, of important applications. We cannot compete on a level field in an ever growing list of niches, big and small. Business is injured even as we subsidize the development of cryptography and general development outside our borders.

    I expect no better from Janet Reno. She is a "legend" in Dade County, Fla; Waco, Tx;, Washington, D.C.; and, now, the high tech centers of the rest of the world.
  • of course i agree that what reno et al are pushing for is ridiculous on a variety of levels, but is this really any surprise at all? the fbi, nsa, and friends see that in a very short period of time they are losing a lot of control and they are panicking. i kind of see this stuff as knee jerks. fortunately, i don't think they can really get very far this way...so let them jerk their knees.
  • The old lady knows only this: Laws are used to control the people, and the people _needs_ to be controlled.

    Typical control freak we have here.
  • They said increasing numbers of terrorist groups, drug traffickers, child pornographers and financial criminals already are using the scrambling technology to avoid detection and frustrate prosecution.

    So who are they targeting with this one? They admit that the criminals are already using such technology and that has them defeated. What possible reason is there to stop the normal people from using such technology. HMM (btw why is it when anyone authority talks about how we need to control the net they bring up porn?)
  • ... to something they don't understand is to regulate it. Crypto case-in-point. Either that or they've been smoking something pretty serious. Hmm... that'd put them in the "drug dealers/child molesters/terrorists" category, and everybody knows that those are the only people who use crypto. ;)
  • Isn't Janet Reno the one who refuses to use a computer because they confuse her? I seem to remeber a story where she had a Windows-based computer removed because she 'had trouble finding her files after she had saved them'...

    If she is such a clueless idiot, what authority does she have telling us what "terrorists" will do with encryption (err, should they ever find www.pgpi.com..OPPS!)? Heck, why is she even still around? This reminds me of Jocylen Elders (former Sergen General) saying we needed to make "safer guns, and safer bullets". Or her "Innercourse 101" class (Innercourse == Masterbation)...or starting sex ed in Kindergarden.. hehe... "OK boys and girls, today we going to learn about Ms. S. Ms. S unfortuntly is slut and gave Mr. M HIV." hehe

    Anyway, it's all good for a laugh if nothing else -- encryption is avalaible to everyone regardless
    of Reno.
  • Is (s)he the most obnoxious thing on this planet? Can Joe from Europe go to www.pgp.org or .com or whatever their web site is and download PGP or something like that? I don't understand something else. Okay, a terrorist blows up a...building say. Well, lets track it through the computer. I don't really understand that too much. I doubt it's too hard for Ben Ladin to go out and download PGP or something like that. Personally, I think that all these damn laws on encryption export should be lifted. They can't justify them. Have the phone companies try to justify long distance charges. They'll give the same old generic answer, maintenance. They don't have reasons.
    Oh yeah, someone get Reno a razor or something like that, she needs to shave.
  • You have just proven that you are smarter than the average American. As odd as it sounds most Americans don't realize that the Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same political party. The goal of this party is an ever larger and more intrusive government.

    The average American is an example of what happens when you get your information from TV.
  • Remember, movies are where Average "FBI Director" Joe gets his ideas about computers. So, it's no surprise that they're afraid of them. After all, computers can do absolutely anything, and you can anyway get past any encryption by typing `override password'.

    -Imperator
  • It gives the rest of the world an area of expertise that America has decided to remain a back runner in.
  • Fourth Ammendment:Ahh, but eschleon covered international communications!

    Apparently, the U.S. would let it slip to one of the international partners (UK, Australia) that they wanted info on certain U.S. citizens, the foreign folks would do the actual snooping, and then let the info trickle back into US hands. Certainly against the spirit of the law, if not the actual words. (Ref: Australian sites on Echelon).


    ...phil
  • I submitted this to the slashdot new story page last week, and it never appeared. Oh well.


    ...phil
  • Screw that, you just get a well overstuffed windows machine and write your file as HAL.DLL.

    Microsoft will gladly contribute a well stuffed and non-heirarchical namesppace!

    What the hell? Stick it in the Registry!

  • With all due respect to /., there should be another category for this type of post. Flamebait doesn't seem to do it justice.
  • THe 9th circuit basically said that it shouldn't matter if source code has the functional purpose of controlling a computer - if people are communicating to each other with it then it's protected. Since programmers value READABLE code, this should be a no brainer.
  • Ever notice how the government is always trying to scare us? "If we don't ban this movie producer, he'll corrupt the country with his communist ideals!" "If we don't perform this police action, this little country will turn communist!" "If we can't eavesdrop on everyone, the terrorists will get you all!"
    The use of crypto has been going up, not down, for several years. Yet they couldn't seem to stop the terrorists a few years ago.
    If terrorism is going to force us to change our society and lose our freedoms, then the terrorists have already won. Good thing this bill is really directed at domestic commercial traffic.
  • Ok, we're talking about the Atorney General and the FBI Director. Aren't their depts. limited to "INTERNAL" US investigations and prosecutions? How does the "EXPORT" of these technologies affect their jurisdiction? Now if were the Director of the CIA and NSA repectively making these claims on behalf of the Clinton administration then it would make "SOME" sence to me.
    Then only way restriction "EXPORT" of these technologies should affect the two agencies in question is if cryptography became a generally accepted "WORLD WIDE"; then it would gain more recognition here in the US and "THAT" would make Reno's and Freech's jobs harder. In that they would no longer have a privacy invading tool at their disposal. Because we all know that they would never use it as a blanket way to gain information against someone whom they didn't already have reason to beleive was commiting a crime. (Oh was I being sarcastic again.... I'm so sorry) :-)

  • In reality it is just a huge FUD campaign against the whole Crypto technology.

    I still maintain that the FBI is simply running interference for the fact that the NSA found a backdoor in RSA years ago and can still read anything they want to.

  • blocked wrote "Freedoms are preserved by institutions that help prevent their encroachment."

    The right to bear arms, as noted in the US Constitution's 2nd Amdt, is an institution that gives teeth to informational institutions like the Internet. It means a lot less to be informed if the govt. has a monopoly on guns (and crypto, and information on how to improvise munitions ...)

    Guns: Go buy a few today! Note: IANAAD (I am not an arms dealer )

    timothy
  • Agreed. So pass laws that make anything (including believe it or not, destroying mailboxes) a "terroristic act" and you circumvent the law. Wouldn't be surprised in the future to see using encryption be a flag for terroist activity by LOCAL law enforcement.

    I believe the FBI was involved in the army and embassy bombings because they occured on "american" soil. Still doesn't explain why they were in Australia.

    Could be wrong though.
  • It's been said before, but BadlandZ's metaphor is apt -- If you can't use crypto in electronic communications, your email is there for the taking. I send a lot of postcards in the mail, but I usually put my blackmail demands (kidding!) and bill payments in envelopes. Context, personal preference, likelihood of interception -- lots of things go into individuals' choice of security level, and they should be allowed to decide what the outcome is.

    No crypto is absolute (like no lock is absolute), but that's not an argument against crypto (or locks).

    The bigger point is about attitude. Many people seem to have an attitude that I will call "Permissionism" -- that the government should officially *approve* what you do / say / want, and that nearly everything be subject to a needs test.

    Often the premise is true ("Nobody needs to drive a bright red car...") but the conclusion is a flying leap away ("... therefore no one ought be allowed to.") In reality, the *right* to choose ones destiny (pursue happiness) is more important than the validity in the eyes of any observer of the validity of the path chosen in the pursuit.

    Because this Permissionist attitude is prevalent, many people don't seem to mind restrictions until they hit them personally. I have heard many people say with a strange mixture of pride and unctuousness that they actually *invite* inspection of their email, because they've got "nothing to hide."

    Spread the envelope / postcard metaphor widely! And of course, point out that the NSA regularly scans email domestic and otherwise ... so far, the overhead it would take to do handwriting recognition on postcards means they can read far fewer of those ...

    timothy
  • Because this Permissionist attitude is prevalent, many people don't seem to mind restrictions until they hit them personally. I have heard many people say with a strange mixture of pride and unctuousness that they actually *invite* inspection of their email, because they've got "nothing to hide."

    Not to start a pat-on-the-back cascade, but...this is an excellent point. I like the term "Permissionism." It accurately describes (at least for me) the attitude of people who are for censorship, encryption control, gun control, abortion control, the War on Rights^H^H^H^H^H^HDrugs, and a host of other government regulatory schemes. They seem to believe that the government owns them, and therefore has the right to regulate them.

    My life is my own; it does not belong to any government bureaucrat to control at his whim. Only if I do actual harm to another person should the government be able to step in.

    --

  • An ANonymous Coward wrote:

    PS It is extremely hilarious to read this board when a lot of people use the word "communist" as the worst possible derogatory term. I think you've been watching too
    many "educational" films from the 50's and not honing your critical thinking abilities enough. I think you should travel around the world and read a few books.


    Actually, I think there might be a few terms equally insulting, but I think communist is a fine derogatory term, as applied to those who favor wide-spread government coercion in order that we might "share equally." Remember, some animals are more equal than others.

    Usually, those in favor of communism say "Hey, you can't base your criticism of communism / Marxism on the failed experiments thus far -- true communism has never been tried! Just wait till we establish it, real soon now." But since the harangue is to "travel around the world and read a few books," I would suggest a few destinations for your tour:

    Places:
    - Poland and Hungary. Ask people how they liked living under communism, and how they liked being in the Soviet Sphere of Influence.

    - Dresden: It's still reeling, with piles of WWII rubble that in the Western part of Germany were long ago displaced by new construction. In fact, go anywhere in the former East Germany and Compare it with cities in the former West Germany. Which would you rather have been in 15 years ago?

    - Korea: North vs. South. Again -- what argument for communism?

    - Hong Kong. Ask how many people left to avoid living under the beneficient Chinese government.

    - Tianemen Square. Ask the students who were slaughtered how communism kept them free. They might be a little quiet, but they won't mind being asked. (Also speak to the women forced to undergo abortions under the one-child policy).

    - Siberia.

    - San Francisco. Picture it shades of gray, with gay people persecuted and with only high officials enjoying the seashore. Oh, and cut out most internet startups and venture capitalists, and forget having DSL service.

    Books:
    The Road to Serfdom -- Hayek
    1984, Animal Farm - Orwell
    Atlas Shrugged - Rand

    That government is best which governs least, and the more numerous the laws the more corrupt the state. States also tend to protect themselves from prosecution - so ask yourself whether you'd rather have an industrial accident happen because Exxon wrecks a ship, or because your government designs a dangerous nuclear reactor. There will never be a harm-free world, but at least you can sue Exxon.

    just some thoughts,

    timothy
  • Porn is brought up when referring to controlling the internet because damn near every politcal goal recently has been justified as being "for the children!".

    Get rid of the guns! Why? For the children!

    Socialized health care now! Why? For the children!

    Metal detectors and full cavity searches for all high school students who wear all black! Why? For the children!

    Censor the Internet! Why? For the children!

    Restrict Crypto! Why? For the children!

    As if any smart terrorist would use Americian crypto when we have the KRA (http://www.kra.org). Next we're not going to be able to import crypto, and I'd bet money the reason will be..... you guessed it... for the children!

    I think I've ranted out now and will go get a beer :)

  • Well, thank goodness Janet Reno is out there to keep us from hurting ourselves. After all, freedom doesn't mean that you can just do anything you want to. Uh, does it...? :)
  • damn, its stuff like this that makes me wanna go out and protest by burning some flags...


    ..................................@ @
  • I say that because I'm not entirely sure of the distinction between the two. Point is, Mrs. Reno is willing to trade OUR freedom for security. Lets say that the scenario she presents actually happens. Who cares? A few deaths. I don't know about alot of you out there, but I would much rather have total freedom and little to no security. I'll protect myself with the glock on my hip. If I fail, oh well. I'm just one person out of 7 billion.

    This goes back to the 'sanctity of life' bullshit people have gotten into their heads. Whats so sacred about life? Absolutely nothing. People will say life is sacred because God says so. Well, look through the bible and you'll discover that God has been one of the leading causes of DEATH! George Carlin (hilarious comedian, very smart person) put forth this very good point and I support it fully. 'If everything that was alive, is now dead, and everything that is now alive is going to die, wheres the sacred part come in?'. Anyway, thats offtopic.

    People feel that life is sacred and therefore would rather trade their freedom for security. Bottom line. In fact, MOST of the politicians in washington today have one or more views that are socialist. With this, I totally disagree. Unfortunatley, I would vote if it would make any difference. You can't exactly vote out of office a socialist if his competition is also a socialist. Doesn't quite work. Clinton, in hiring Reno, has proven that he has socialist views as well. Given, he has been good for this country, economy is up, inflation is down, in the long run, it will be for the worse.

    -Deimos-
  • Actually, freedom means having right to do anything you please as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of someone else.
  • as it is dropping the bales of coke out over the Florida Keys. You really don't need to deal with encryption technology to track them with radar, do you???
  • why are they so worried about terrorists abusing crypto
    laws when terrorists break laws anyways? I don't think
    someone who's trying to bomb someplace is going to be too
    worried to export crypto right now, and that won't
    change even with new laws that allow it.
  • ahem. republicans seem to want to get into our
    lives too - trying to ban medical procedures
    ( abortion ), posting the 10 commandments,
    in which not all of us beleive, in public
    places, requiring libraries to use blocking
    software, etcetera.

    people bent on social control live on
    both sides of the aisle
  • Well, the book was published back in 1997, so you should take what it says about global warming with a grain of salt. Global warming is still pretty cutting edge science, so "no detected warming" then doesn't mean that it hasn't been detected now.

    As it is, there is more research coming up that shows a definite warming trend of the earth. Of course, it is difficult to say whether this is a normal fluctuation or a man-made occurence, but we shouldn't quickly discount the possibility that global warming may be occuring right now.

    links:
    1998 was hottest year on record [cnn.com]


    Coral bleaching hits record level [cnn.com]

  • Gore? Anti-Technology? But...But...He INVENTED the internet!

    Sob
  • "If Al Gore invented the Internet, I invented the spelling checker." -- Dan Quayle
  • will do anything.

    Laws that turn innocent self-protection into the grounds for suspicion or investigation drive in further the wedge that the over-legislation of America (and not just America) drives between the People and the Keepers.

    If it's 'grounds for suspicion' when you wear sunglasses as you drive (I'm not sure, but I bet that this is on some of the various profiles that Polizei use to us overpullen), then what's next?

    Control, control, control. The State always wants more, whether you call it left-wing, right-wing or centrist. Some government is a good thing, but if the question is How Much? the answer is always Less less less.

    Aside: I suppose I will vote libertarian, since my preference for GWBush is only marginal and relative. Gore is a power-hungry, unimaginative, statist busy-body with a pro-censorship wife, who went along with the sleaze of Mr. Bill for the past 6 years (7 if you count the campaign). So any vote at all is reluctant. Bush seems a less sleazy character than Clinton, and smarter than Gore, but not worth the satisfaction of the libertarians.

    timothy
  • Humor and personality modules will be added soon, hopefully before the election.

    All in all, my android is performing quite well and everything is proceeding exactly as planned. After the election, I will add infrared vision, ultrasonic hearing, and a wireless LAN implant. Oh yeah, and his actions will be completely determined by the slashdot poll statistics.

  • You are thinking of Reagan.....

    Despite physical appearance, Reno is very clever... she is playing on the average American's fear of the Internet and the threat it brings (or so she implies).

  • ...violating make crypto export laws is the least of my problems.

    And the government is missing the obvious points about the whole crypto situation:

    • It's illegal to export mechanisms to achieve certain strengths of encryption. However, it's perfectly legal for me to send an encrypted message outside of the country. Then again, if I'm encrypting confidential information that I wouldn't want the government to see, I probably wouldn't care if they tried getting me for breaking crypto/munitions laws. (See above.)

    • People inside the United States already have the means to achieve strong levels of encryption. If the government is trying to say they're having problems spying on their on people, then they're screwed from the get-go -- continuing to make crypto exports illegal won't make their lives any easier since US citizens already have the technology.

    • There is no logic in not allowing US-developed strong crypto to leave the country. It screws the individuals and companies in the US that do crypto research and develop the products.

      Look at Netscape/Microsoft -- they weren't able to export 128-bit versions of their browsers for years because of munitions export laws. Non-US-developed "wrappers" for Netscape Navigator/MS Internet Explorer shortly popped up, however, giving the 40-bit export versions of the browsers nearly the same functionality as the 128-bit versions. Who got screwed? Netscape and MS. Who accomplished nothing? The US government.

      If the government is worried about not being able to easily peek at data in other countries, they're screwed from the get-go again -- chances are that the other countries already have the technology that the US government is legally preventing from going across the borders.

  • I wonder if Britain would give us the same deal again if we surrendered peacefully?

    Colonies calling London...

    Come in London...
  • Good call on the vegetarian thing --- if history were made of vegos, cows, pigs, etc would probably be extinct.

    As for taxation... it is necessary to keep our roads pot-hole free, our schools educational, and our military defensive. But what else? Currently, something like 3% of my paycheck goes to crack-whore mothers or other undesirables. Although taxation-without-representation is nearly impossible in our day and age (despite the internet), should I not have a say in where my tax dollars go? If this were the way, I doubt Janet would be endorsing anti-crypto.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Close