Subject: RE: [Raven] What IS acceptable

From: "Adam Rabblerouser" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:20:41 EST

>At 09:09 AM 11/24/1999 , you wrote:
> >Just what do you weenies think IS acceptable Law Enforcement
> >behavior?
>
>I can't speak for "weenies", nor about what "weenies" think of 
>"Stalinists".
>
> >If all communication on the Internet is totally anonymous,
> >and totally encrypted, what do you tell the parent of the
> >teenaged kid who was lured by some scumbag to meet him when
> >the cops tell the parents there is ZERO they can do?
>
>You help people who suffer tragedies. You accept that safety is not perfect 
>in anything. You ask the police if they ever do police work on atoms, 
>rather than bits. You recognize that parents could put a monitoring system 
>on their own computer for their own use without granting unprecedented new 
>powers to the government. You understand that granting governments great 
>new powers does not provide only nice, neat, beneficial results, but also 
>promotes the ability to inflict tyranny and abuse. History is clear on 
>that.
History is clear that society protects children.  It actually tends
to trample adult rights to do that.  History is also clear that
cops are more helpfull than harmfull.  If I have a crime committed
on me, I call the cops.  You do too.

No one can put the genie back in the bottle on encryption, so
anonymity might be easier, and law enforcement of this kind might
be harder.  Tough, can't change it.

On the other hand, if, say, Microsoft has information on where my
connection to hotmail comes from, it had damn well better pony it
up to the cop bearing a warrant for it.  And it better do so to
the scum who lures someone's kid too.

But in the end, bad guys exist, cops are necessary, and intercept
is also necessary.  Not sufficient, not pleasant, but necessary.

>Of all types of groups (organized crime, terrorists, corporations, 
>non-profits, militias, extremist hate groups, religions, governments, etc.) 
>which of those do your records show as responsible for the most deaths this 
>century? Most property destruction? More power to governments does not 
>always result in more goodness or justice.
So start your own country without any government.  In the mean time,
please leave mine.  On balance, I rather like it.  On balance,
I'm not out to wipe away the FBI, my local state cops, or my local
town cops.  None are perfect, all have sinned.  So have I.
On balance, I'd prefer to start with the premise that there is
a TON more good in any agency than bad, and work to eliminate the
bad folks.  Probably means more rules, probably means more money,
probably means some attitude adjustmant.  Seems to me its a damn sight
easier than nuking them and asking the bad guys to sign up for
citizenship classes.

You know, it would be a LOT harder to catch the bad guys if they
were smarter.  It's one of the reasons why the cops want wiretap
even when encryption is easy.

>
> >A few weeks ago there were articles about successfull prosecution
> >of a gang where wiretap evidence was able to show the ringleaders
> >handing out assignments to the soldiers, and some of the evidence
> >was calling patterns rather than actual intercepts.
> >What alternatives DO we give our cops?
>
>To actually work on crime that involves atoms, not just bits.
It requires people dude.  Real human, fallible people.
Bits are tools.   Give the people some tools.  Most of the cops
I know work hard to avoid crime in the first place, stop it
when they can, and catch 'em when they can't.  Most cops I know
are decent humans, with decent morals, and a strong work ethic.
I've met bad ones.  They exist.  Better to root 'em out than
demean the vast majority who are good at what they do.

> >Shall we totally abandon any attempt at monitoring dirtballs?
>
>"Dirtballs" can be monitored by having police look at them with eyeballs. 
>By following them. By talking to their associates. By seeing what they buy. 
>  By watching where they go. By actually doing police work. The choices are 
>not 1) unfettered taps or 2) abandon any attempt at monitoring. That is a 
>false dicotomy. I have not seen anyone suggest here that police work be 
>ceased, or that attempts at monitoring be ceased.
Which century are you living in?  If the perp is on the phone
in his house, you want me to have the cop hide behind the drapes?
Get real.  Follow a cop around for a day or two and then tell me
about how they do "actual police work".

If the perp doesn't use a phone, or a computer, than we don't need
to use a phone tap or a computer tap.  They seem to use them a lot.
Gotta give the cops the tools to deal with it.

>
> >Until we succeed in getting all humans to behave decently, we
> >are stuck with law enforcement.
>
>Some of whom behave decently, some of whom do not, particularly with 
>wiretaps. See http://pd.co.la.ca.us/index.htm .
>
>And in Los Angeles, the current news reports about police there:
>"So far, the probe has revealed evidence of improper shootings,
>beatings, drug thefts, intimidation of witnesses, and planting of false
>evidence. " (http://www.latimes.com/tcn/glendale/news/19991120/tgn0000290.
>html). One should not blindly assume that rights held by the people are 
>dangerous, and that power exercised by the police is good. Look deeper.
I'm not here to defend improper, illegal, or immoral behavior
by some LAPD people.  Those who were responsible should be investigated, 
prosecuted and punished.  Rules should be established
to avoid having it recurr.  We should learn from the situation.

On the other hand, disbanding the entire force isn't appropriate.
Neither is outlawing all intercept.

> >   I don't see that situation changing.
> >Since law enforcement people are human, they make mistakes.  Lots
> >of them.  So do I.  Live with it.
>
>
>Sure. Live with the mistakes that regular folks make, and be a little 
>slower to put the police more deeply into their lives, since you may not be 
>improving things.
Oh puleeze.  Live with cops that are people, that's all.  Work to
improve, don't just blindly take tools away because some idiots
misused them.  It's never going to be possible to eliminate abuse.  We don't 
have to condone it, and we don't have to be stupid about it either.  Taking 
the tool away is the stupid answer
 .
> >   Courts in the free world have
> >a pretty decent record in the last few decades for righting wrongs in 
>this >area, use them.
>
>
>They haven't yet brought dead people back to life, nor returned years 
>unjustly spent in prison to one's lifespan. But also, the police can use 
>courts, as they do everyday, when they arrest people for actual crimes, not 
>just the movement of bits.
Right.  Judges are human too, they make mistakes.  Society norms
evolve over time.  The thing is, they almost always get it "right".
Sometimes too late for some, but it's a system that mostly works.
Use it.

Movement of bits is the same as movement of sound - it's just a
transport.  There is NO difference between intercept by microphone
intercept by tap of wireline telephones, and intercept by tap of
Internet bits.  If I get a warrant, and get to plant a microphone,
tap your phone, or tap your bits, it's all the same.  The laws
should treat them the same, the rules should be the same.

> >   And don't whine to me about despots; they
> >can abuse anything good, and don't need no help to do so.
>
>They don't need help, but they become stronger and more pervasive with it.
Why don't we outlaw wheat.  Despots get stronger on Wheaties.

>
> >Turning off all eavesdropping tools because your civil rights
> >were violated by some idiot FBI or whatever turkey doesn't cut it.
>
>I have not seen  anyone here suggesting "turning off all eavesdropping 
>tools".
>
>Others have written:
>"The mushrooming of surveillance has been explained by the sense of panic 
>and crisis felt throughout the government during this period of extremely 
>vocal dissent, large demonstrations, political and campus violence, and 
>what at the time seemed the inauguration of a period of wide- spread 
>anarchy. While officials... suggested that these crises justified the 
>surveillance, they failed to recognize that the rights guaranteed by the 
>constitution are constant and unbending to the temper of the times."
>Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, 1973
>
>"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the 
>argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
>William Pitt to the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
>
>"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those 
>values and ideals which set this Nation apart... It would indeed be ironic 
>if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of 
>one of those liberties... which makes the defense of the Nation 
>worthwhile."
>Chief Justice Earl Warren, U.S. Supreme Court, US v Robel
Just what is the point of the quotes?

At various times in the history of the world, intercept has been
abused.  For all time, intercept has been legal.  For quite a
long time, intercept has been regulated.  All of the notables
quoted sanctioned intercept at one point or another.

As communication technology evolves, the ability to intercept
must evolve.  Inventing a new communications technology does not
change the tenor of the discussion.  It does not change the legal
basis for intercept.

> >Get real.
>
>Now there's a great point!

Adam

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: Ed Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:14:49 -0500

>on me, I call the cops.  You do too.

Actually, I never have done so. And you speak collectively on police and 
societies. Clearly, some societies do not protect children. People differ 
on what that entails, but the protection of children, while it is the 
current mantra justifying whatever intrusion du jour that some politician 
wants, is not the issue in front of the IETF.

<snip>

>>non-profits, militias, extremist hate groups, religions, governments, 
>>etc.) which of those do your records show as responsible for the most 
>>deaths this century? Most property destruction? More power to governments 
>>does not always result in more goodness or justice.
>So start your own country without any government.

Recognizing that the government is also capable of injustice and evil does 
not mean that one's only alternative is to "start your own country without 
any government".

A more reasonable alternative is to be mindful of government's mixed 
history, and to take measures to limit its powers. That way, one could work 
toward getting the benefits of good government, without facilitating its 
abuse of power.

>   In the mean time,
>bad folks.

You then rely on selection and staffing practices, rather than limitations 
of power pof the institution. Your point, metaphorically, is that the 
difference between Rebecca's Sunnybrook Farm and the Third Reich is not in 
the institutions, but in the staffing.

>   Probably means more rules, probably means more money,

"Nuking them" would seem to be an unreasonable and extreme alternative 
strategy. I suggest looking at the middle ground.

>even when encryption is easy.

The motivations of the police are more complicated than that.

>It requires people dude.  Real human, fallible people.

Yes. That's what I like about it.

>demean the vast majority who are good at what they do.

Again, consider the middle ground rather than extreme alternatives.

>>By following them. By talking to their associates. By seeing what they 
>>buy.  By watching where they go. By actually doing police work. The 
>>choices are not 1) unfettered taps or 2) abandon any attempt at 
>>monitoring. That is a false dicotomy. I have not seen anyone suggest here 
>>that police work be ceased, or that attempts at monitoring be ceased.

If "the perp" is committing a crime "on the phone", and police know that, 
one conventional alternative is to enter and arrest him, correct? Current 
laws (in the US) support that action, correct? If the police do _not_ know 
that he is committing a crime, then their interest is to monitor him just 
in case he does commit some crime at some future time?

>about how they do "actual police work".

Have you sat by watching police do wiretapping? Do they let friends watch it?

>Gotta give the cops the tools to deal with it.

By "perp", you mean "perpetrator of a crime"? If so, why not place him 
under arrest? If the "perp" has not perpetrated a crime, exactly what tools 
do the police need?

>to avoid having it recurr.  We should learn from the situation.

Not only rules, but laws were established. They were violated by the 
District Attorney and the police.

>Neither is outlawing all intercept.

I have not seen anyone suggest disbanding the entire force. Look to the 
middle ground, rather than extremist alternatives.

>>slower to put the police more deeply into their lives, since you may not 
>>be improving things.
>misused them.  It's never going to be possible to eliminate abuse.  We 
>don't have to condone it, and we don't have to be stupid about it 
>either.  Taking the tool away is the stupid answer

"Taking the tool away"? Are you talking about existing powers, or about 
new, requested powers? That we cannot eliminate all abuse does not mean 
that we have to do all of one thing, or none of another. Middle ground.

>>courts, as they do everyday, when they arrest people for actual crimes, 
>>not just the movement of bits.

Imperfect systems, such as those that include humans, work best when they 
are limited in power, and power is widely distributed, and accumulations of 
it are limited.  The foundations of the US are based on that understanding. 
See separation of powers, inalienable rights, Article I Section 8, 
Amendment 1,2,4,5,and 10 in particular, John Locke's Second Treatise of 
Government, Federalist Papers, etc.

>should treat them the same, the rules should be the same.

I disagree.

>Why don't we outlaw wheat.  Despots get stronger on Wheaties.

A very interesting thought process.

>>values and ideals which set this Nation apart... It would indeed be 
>>ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the 
>>subversion of one of those liberties... which makes the defense of the 
>>Nation worthwhile."

If you don't get that point, I'm pretty sure that I can't state it more 
plainly than the quotes themselves do.

>quoted sanctioned intercept at one point or another.

All intercepts? At all times? At all places? For all reasons? With our 
without various legal process?  ....

--
--------------------------
Ed Stone
[email-masked]
--------------------------

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:23:03 +0100

On 24 Nov 99, at 11:20, Adam Rabblerouser wrote:

> Follow a cop around for a day or two and then tell me

Maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea for a lot of people here. 

Before I had seen real police =working= and overseeing 
their problems, the detailed maps of gangs on the wall, the 
extremely and unavoidable high costs, the low solution 
rate, before all that I was for unregulated, free 
encryption too.

But it's absurd, we all have to pay for it.

Please stop thinking policework has anything to do with 
hollywood, politics or the exceptions that appear in 
newspapers.

It's just work, lot of policemen are idealistic, and yes, 
some of them are bad policemen.

Who doesn't know bad techies?

But again:

Nobody here seems to wants backdoors in old or new 
protocols.

ONE standard for an auditable version of tcpdump isn't 
unreasonable and it will give IETF a nice stick to beat the 
stupid "make protocols tapable" people.

+++chefren

=Signature follows=

I think we need a simple architecture for a point
to point tap interface that has strong provisions
against misuse.

On one side the communication provider who only
starts tapping a specific customer or IP number
with proper warrants.

On the other side the approved tapping room.

Everything should be organized by a central
"tapping office". This office should provide
keys for strong encryption to both communication
provider and tapping room.

Law and technology should both provide as
much checks and balances as we can come up
with. Law can provide good procedures,
technology can provide technical means to
check them or force them.

=Large signature ended. If you want to
help to setup a standard for the above
design, please contact me.=

---

From: Mark Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Nov 1999 12:47:54 -0800

"Adam Rabblerouser" <[email-masked]> writes:
> to trample adult rights to do that.

"For the children, is the plea for every infringment of human
liberty. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves."

-- 
Mark Atwood               | 
[email-masked]             | 
http://www.pobox.com/~mra |