Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991 • Hacker News Board

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#61

Post by wdr1 » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:22 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #7

The whole US government tried to ban encryption wholesale in the 1990s; they even attempted to standardize a bespoke algorithm (Skipjack) that provided key escrow for law enforcement. During the same period, they religiously enforced export controls that classified any encryption code, including simple hash functions, as munitions. I remember buying a "this t-shirt is a munition" shirt in '95 by giving a website the…

> The whole US government tried to ban encryption wholesale in the 1990s

This simply isn't true.

I'm not sure if you're attempting to absolve Biden of his dreadful part in banning encryption, but if the entire government wanted something to happen, it would have happened.

Yes, PGP was out in the open, however, the government obviously could still have required it, still could have mandated the Clipper Chip, etc.

Also several members of the government notably spoke out against it, including Senators John Ashcroft & John Kerry.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#62

Post by tptacek » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:25 PM UTC

lubujackson wrote: post #60

tptacek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What law are you referring to here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U... I was thinking of when the limit of crypto for export was 40 bits SSL, which would have made all e-commerce impossible due to the uselessness of 40 bit crypto. Luckily that was changed.

Export controls were a pain in the ass, but strong cryptography (or what we considered to be strong crypto at the time) was prevalent during the worst of it. Cryptography itself was never outlawed.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#63

Post by tptacek » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:27 PM UTC

wdr1 wrote: post #61

tptacek wrote: post #7

The whole US government tried to ban encryption wholesale in the 1990s; they even attempted to standardize a bespoke algorithm (Skipjack) that provided key escrow for law enforcement. During the same period, they religiously enforced export controls that classified any encryption code, including simple hash functions, as munitions. I remember buying a "this t-shirt is a munition" shirt in '95 by giving a website the…

> The whole US government tried to ban encryption wholesale in the 1990s This simply isn't true. I'm not sure if you're attempting to absolve Biden of his dreadful part in banning encryption, but if the entire government wanted something to happen, it would have happened. Yes, PGP was out in the open, however, the government obviously could still have required it, still could have mandated the Clipper Chip, etc. Also…

Biden never banned encryption; the only statute I can find that bears his name says the opposite.

I'm interested in the Ashcroft and Kerry references you're thinking of. Were they contemporaneous, or from the late '90s? In the late 1990s, there was a sharp shift towards liberalizing crypto, with competing bills introduced in the House and Senate by both parties. The argument shifted from "will we mandate key escrow for the general public" to "is it OK for us to provide a facility to mandate key escrow for systems sold to the federal government should we want to do so in the future".

You're right to call me out on one thing: "the entire government" was imprecise wording. I should have said "the Democratic administration, the preceding Republican administration, and prominent members of both the Senate and the House on both sides of the aisle".

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#64

Post by chernevik » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:30 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #16

chernevik wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. But this wasn't some joker on a bar stool spouting opinions. This was a United States Senator, proposing law. I would hope that if I was _legislating_ I would take care to do _nothing_ until I was quite sure that my proposals didn't diminish the liberties of free people. Biden might today protest ignorance. Okay, then what the hell was he doing proposing legislation in the first place?

He was not "proposing law". He added a meaningless sense of Congress resolution in 1993 that presaged CALEA, which he cosponsored, and which passed in 1994, and which expressly exempted providers from being required to decrypt encrypted communications.

It is not possible to comment meaningfully on the language discussed without more context, including a description of the bill to which it was to be attached. "Sense of the Senate" type language can be harmless fluff, or it can be potentially important in the legislative history consulted by the courts as they interpret law.

You can no more tell me the significance of that language without that context than you could tell me, without context, the implications of "int i; i = 0;" for a program's execution.

If you want to refute the OP assertion that Biden's proposal actually mattered, you will have to be considerably more thorough than you have been.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#65

Post by tptacek » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:33 PM UTC

chernevik wrote: post #64

tptacek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was not "proposing law". He added a meaningless sense of Congress resolution in 1993 that presaged CALEA, which he cosponsored, and which passed in 1994, and which expressly exempted providers from being required to decrypt encrypted communications.

It is not possible to comment meaningfully on the language discussed without more context, including a description of the bill to which it was to be attached. "Sense of the Senate" type language can be harmless fluff, or it can be potentially important in the legislative history consulted by the courts as they interpret law. You can no more tell me the significance of that language without that context than you could…

You can feel free to go verify that the bill to which Biden's language was attached did not itself attempt to criminalize encryption.

It is also very easy to discover what the public law Biden cosponsored less than a year later said about lawful intercept and cryptography.

I'd tell you, but I'd be repeating several comments I've already written on this thread.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#66

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:34 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #7

The whole US government tried to ban encryption wholesale in the 1990s; they even attempted to standardize a bespoke algorithm (Skipjack) that provided key escrow for law enforcement. During the same period, they religiously enforced export controls that classified any encryption code, including simple hash functions, as munitions. I remember buying a "this t-shirt is a munition" shirt in '95 by giving a website the…

[deleted]

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#67

Post by chernevik » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:38 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #7

The whole US government tried to ban encryption wholesale in the 1990s; they even attempted to standardize a bespoke algorithm (Skipjack) that provided key escrow for law enforcement. During the same period, they religiously enforced export controls that classified any encryption code, including simple hash functions, as munitions. I remember buying a "this t-shirt is a munition" shirt in '95 by giving a website the…

"Sense of Congress resolutions don't create law. They're literally just statements of opinion. So the idea that this amendment would have "outlawed SSH" is directly mistaken."

This is not correct, or if correct, is so in a manner meaningless for any layman. "Sense of the Senate" language is often important in judicial and / or executive interpretation. It may not be "law" but can often matter a great deal in the implementation, enforcement and interpretation of law.

In a discussion among legal experts "resolutions don't create law" might be one thing. In a discussion of non-lawyers of Congressional efforts to make policy it is simply, and at best, wrong.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#68

Post by chernevik » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:45 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #65

chernevik wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not possible to comment meaningfully on the language discussed without more context, including a description of the bill to which it was to be attached. "Sense of the Senate" type language can be harmless fluff, or it can be potentially important in the legislative history consulted by the courts as they interpret law. You can no more tell me the significance of that language without that context than you could…

You can feel free to go verify that the bill to which Biden's language was attached did not itself attempt to criminalize encryption. It is also very easy to discover what the public law Biden cosponsored less than a year later said about lawful intercept and cryptography. I'd tell you, but I'd be repeating several comments I've already written on this thread.

Your reliance on your readers to construct your argument for you strongly suggests to me that there isn't much argument there. Because its an exceptional reader who has time for such research -- if the point where there to be made, you'd be more convincing simply making it yourself.

I know zero about Joe Biden's position on crypto. But the style of this argument looks to me very much like FUD.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#69

Post by tptacek » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:46 PM UTC

chernevik wrote: post #67

tptacek wrote: post #7

The whole US government tried to ban encryption wholesale in the 1990s; they even attempted to standardize a bespoke algorithm (Skipjack) that provided key escrow for law enforcement. During the same period, they religiously enforced export controls that classified any encryption code, including simple hash functions, as munitions. I remember buying a "this t-shirt is a munition" shirt in '95 by giving a website the…

"Sense of Congress resolutions don't create law. They're literally just statements of opinion. So the idea that this amendment would have "outlawed SSH" is directly mistaken." This is not correct, or if correct, is so in a manner meaningless for any layman. "Sense of the Senate" language is often important in judicial and / or executive interpretation. It may not be "law" but can often matter a great deal in the impl…

You don't have to read tea leaves to figure out what Biden actually believed. His name is on CALEA, which passed less than a year later. CALEA explicitly does not criminalize encryption.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#70

Post by tptacek » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 10:47 PM UTC

chernevik wrote: post #68

tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can feel free to go verify that the bill to which Biden's language was attached did not itself attempt to criminalize encryption. It is also very easy to discover what the public law Biden cosponsored less than a year later said about lawful intercept and cryptography. I'd tell you, but I'd be repeating several comments I've already written on this thread.

Your reliance on your readers to construct your argument for you strongly suggests to me that there isn't much argument there. Because its an exceptional reader who has time for such research -- if the point where there to be made, you'd be more convincing simply making it yourself. I know zero about Joe Biden's position on crypto. But the style of this argument looks to me very much like FUD.

Just read the rest of my comments. They directly address your point. Not wanting to repeat things I've already written in this thread does not constitute avoidance of argument.