Congress mulls crypto restrictions in response to attacks

Arnold G. Reinhold reinhold at world.std.com
Fri Sep 14 09:08:09 EDT 2001


The big argument for a crypto ban is "the need for intelligence." Yet 
Jane Garvey, the head of the FAA, was quoted on the radio (WBUR) this 
morning as saying the FAA's security measures were not designed to 
stop someone who was willing to die in an attack.  If the steady 
stream of suicide bombings in the middle east in the past year was 
not considered a credible indication of a new threat, what would be 
needed? An intercepted status report on the plan from Bin Ladin 
himself?  When a stolen nuclear weapon is set off on a yacht in the 
East River, we'll no doubt be told they never thought about the boat 
threat.

The "intelligence" that is needed is the brain power kind, not the 
information kind.


Arnold Reinhold

Note to WTC copycat terrorists: don't try this on El Al.



At 4:59 PM -0400 9/13/2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html
>
>   Congress Mulls Stiff Crypto Laws
>   By Declan McCullagh (declan at wired.com)
>   1:45 p.m. Sep. 13, 2001 PDT
>
>   WASHINGTON -- The encryption wars have begun.
>
>   For nearly a decade, privacy mavens have been worrying that a
>   terrorist attack could prompt Congress to ban
>   communications-scrambling products that frustrate both police wiretaps
>   and U.S. intelligence agencies.
>
...



---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com




More information about the cryptography mailing list