Strike
Christos Ricudis
ricudis at paiko.gr
Thu Dec 10 10:49:12 EET 1998
Hello All!
Strike to protest Wassenaar!
Bob's usual web pages are temporarily unavailable. They will return
after 14 December.
This is a global call for computer professionals to strike on Monday,
14 December, 1998 to protest the signing of the Wassenaar Arrangement,
an international treaty that imposes new restrictions on cryptographic
software technology. The strike is meant to raise awareness about the
importance of cryptography, about the U.S. government's wrongheaded
attempts to curtail its use, and about the strong-arm tactics used by
the United States to pressure other countries into limiting their
citizens' rights the way it has limited its own.
Background
For many years, a U.S. law known as ITAR regulating the export of
munitions has been used by the government to prohibit the export not
only of missiles and tanks but of cryptographic software as well
("crypto" for short).
Crypto is an essential technology for electronic commerce, online
privacy, and computer security. Without it, malicious hackers can
easily intercept credit card numbers and bank account data, read
private e-mail and forge messages, and infiltrate computer networks.
Crypto is also used to protect against unwanted information disclosure
that's not malicious; for instance, to keep employees on a computer
network from accidentally stumbling across a file full of salary
information.
Most major software vendors require crypto capabilities in their
products. For instance, Netscape Navigator contains crypto software
from RSA for doing such things as secure credit card transactions.
The U.S. was alone among its major trading partners in imposing such
restrictions on crypto export (France being a notable exception). In
the mid-1990's, as the Internet began reaching the mainstream,
software vendors began complaining that the export restrictions made
it impossible for them to compete globally. They had to deliberately
"cripple" their software, disabling crypto capabilities, before being
allowed to export it. Their competitors overseas did not face this
handicap. U.S. software vendors pleaded with the government for a
level playing field.
Around the same time, various legal challenges to the export control
of crypto were underway, notably Phil Karn's Applied Cryptography case
and Dan Bernstein's Snuffle case. A ruling in the Snuffle case
declared parts of ITAR to be unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Phil
Zimmermann, author of the popular crypto program PGP, was the object
of years of legal harassment by the government---harassment that was
abruptly dropped when the government (apparently) realized they were
on shaky legal ground. Similarly, attempts by the Clinton
administration to place new domestic restraints on crypto---the
so-called "Clipper chip" proposals, that would have required all
encrypted data to be decipherable by the government---failed because
of constitutionality concerns. Because of these and other
developments, the days appeared to be numbered for laws restricting
crypto technology.
Is your country among the Wassenaar signatories?
Argentina; Australia; Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Canada; Czech
Republic; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland;
Italy; Japan; Republic of Korea; Luxembourg; The Netherlands; New
Zealand; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russia; Slovakia; Spain;
Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; United States.
If so, you've just lost some rights you may not have been aware of.
Then on 3 December 1998, 33 countries signed the Wassenaar Arrangement
on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and
Technologies, whose noble purpose is to preserve international peace
and stability by reducing the proliferation of offensive strategic
weapons. Incredibly, though, crypto software is included in the treaty
as an offensive strategic weapon! The U.S., under pressure from its
high-tech sector to "create a level playing field," did just
that---not by dropping the unreasonable restrictions on crypto export
but by bullying its trading partners into adopting the same ones!
This, despite the fact that they didn't want to, despite Europe's
recent commitment to strong privacy laws, and despite mounting legal
evidence that the crypto export laws are flawed.
Why does the government care?
Why does the U.S. government insist on treating crypto as munitions?
After all, numerous citizens' and industry groups, including the
American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and some fifty other
members of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign have denounced the
government's position. Furthermore, there is other software not
covered by export control laws that would seem to pose a greater
military threat. Missile guidance software, for instance.
The answer is that the government wishes to control crypto to preserve
its eavesdropping capabilities. (This intent was betrayed by the
administration's failed Clipper chip proposals.) The position of the
U.S. government is that crypto technology can be used by lawbreakers
in maturing their felonious little plans, and law enforcement will
have that much harder a time keeping up with them. International
terrorists might use encrypted e-mail to plan some hideous act on
American soil, and the FBI would be none the wiser.
This argument is specious for at least two reasons. First of all,
high-quality crypto software has long been available outside the
United States; just because the terrorists can't get their hands on
American crypto software doesn't mean that they can't still conceal
their activities using encryption.
The second reason is that this argument applies equally to such things
as knives, locks, matches, power tools, the Interstate highway system,
rope, and anything else that has a legitimate use but might also be
used in a crime.
What will be the result?
After Wassenaar, the major industrialized nations will not be able to
export cryptographic software. Each nation will have to develop its
own software, or rely on exports from Third World countries (or others
that aren't Wassenaar signatories). Since crypto software won't be
shareable, it is likely that there will be interoperability problems;
citizens of one country will be unable to exchange encrypted data with
citizens of another.
On the other hand, countries can share crypto software---as long as
it's not exported as software. The Applied Cryptography case, for
example, highlights the fact that crypto programs, reproduced
line-by-line in a printed book, are exportable, because they're
"protected speech" under the First Amendment. This is why, when Phil
Zimmermann wrote PGP, he published the program in book form so it
could legally be shared with other nations despite ITAR. Now, it's a
lot of work for someone overseas to get a copy of the book and
transcribe its contents back into a computer, but it's certainly
possible to do. It's even easier to scan the book with an OCR (optical
character recognition) device, turning it back into digital form
automatically. Furthermore, since the U.S. Supreme Court opined in
ACLU vs. Reno that the Internet deserves the highest level of
free-speech protection, it seems inevitable that the legal distinction
between exporting a program in book form and exporting a program in
digital form will soon evaporate.
In short, the law accomplishes nothing except to create an
inconvenience for law-abiding users of cryptography and to set a bad
precedent that will allow governments to impose further unwarranted
restrictions on our freedoms in the future.
Not surprisingly, although Wassenaar blithely tramples the rights of
individuals, it protects large corporations. Exempt from its
cryptography restrictions are uses that protect intellectual property.
So Sony Pictures can rest assured that its investment in Leonard Part
6 is safe 'cause no one can copy the DVD, whereas little old you can't
be certain who'll see that embarrassing mash note you e-mailed to your
sweetheart.
Call to action
If you are a computer professional, don't work on Monday, 14 December,
1998. Take the day off, and use part of that time to contact
journalists, politicians, friends, and relatives, informing them of
your displeasure with the big step backward represented by Wassenaar's
crypto provisions.
Prior to that date, spread the news about this strike among colleagues
and associates. Share the URL of this web page. Mirror it on your own
web server if you can. Educate yourself about the issues. (Begin by
following some of the links on this page.)
Why strike?
In democratic societies, citizens generally do not surrender their
liberties without a compelling reason. But interested parties can
sometimes take away liberties when the issues aren't well-understood.
In order to make its job easier, the American law-enforcement
establishment is interested in taking away liberties that most people
don't yet know to care about preserving. The purpose of this strike,
therefore, is to raise public awareness, educating people about what's
been taken away from them and what else they stand to lose.
It would make law enforcement's job easier if it could restrict travel
between cities, too, or monitor private conversations at will, or
fingerprint everybody, but we don't tolerate such intrusions. When
technology advances, we insist that law enforcement update its methods
to combat its occasional misuse, rather than deny us its benefits. So
must we insist now.
I don't care
Maybe you don't plan to shop online, or if you do, you don't care if
your credit card number is intercepted. Or maybe you don't plan to
correspond with people electronically, or if you do, you don't care
that your correspondence can be read by total strangers. Maybe
cryptography just plain doesn't matter to you. But the law that
governs it should matter to you, and here's why: it's based solely on
the premise that cryptography tools can be used for illegal purposes.
Some things, like lock-picking tools and nuclear weapons, are banned
for the same reason, but only because they have no legitimate use. The
uses of cryptographic software, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly
legitimate. When the government deprives its citizens of useful rights
simply to make the job of law enforcement easier, it is on the road to
becoming a police state.
Can't happen here? It does seem unlikely---but only because we have
the freedom to oppose such measures, a freedom that Americans have
always used to ward off government abuses. If we don't use that
freedom now, while it's still early enough to do some good, we may
lose it altogether.
_________________________________________________________________
In 1996, Phil Zimmermann testified to the U.S. Senate about crypto
export restrictions, saying in part that crypto is an essential tool
used throughout the world to protect citizens against tyranny in
government.
_________________________________________________________________
[LINK]-[IMAGE] Golden Key Campaign
Copyright ó 1998 by Bob Glickstein. The opinions expressed on this
page are not necessarily those of Zanshin.
This page was created with Latte.
--
Christos Ricudis
"Windows has detected that a gnat has farted near your computer. Press any
key to reboot". - anonymous in ASR.
--
====================================================================
Gia boithia (h na diagrafhte) e-mail sto majordomo at argos.hol.gr
Ta archives tis listas einai sto http://www.argos.hol.gr/lists :
prin steilete kapoia erothsh psakte mipos exei hdh apanththei.
Gia opoiodipote problima stilte e-mail ston owner-linux-greek-users
====================================================================
More information about the Linux-greek-users
mailing list