3 ms·
I'd add a friendly amendment: CALEA was intended to be a first step, a "beachhead," toward domestic controls on encryption. The fact that the second step was n
by declan 14y ago
I'd add a friendly amendment: CALEA was intended to be a first step, a
"beachhead," toward domestic controls on encryption. The fact that the second step was not successful came despite efforts by Biden, the FBI, the NSA, etc. -- not because of them. See below.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
"Joe Biden made his second attempt to introduce such legislation" in the form of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which was also known as the Digital Telephony law, according to an account in Wired magazine. Biden at the time was chairman of the relevant committee; he co-sponsored the Senate version and dutifully secured a successful floor vote on it less than two months after it was introduced. CALEA became law in October 1994, and is still bedeviling privacy advocates: the FBI recently managed to extend its requirements to Internet service providers.
CALEA represented one step in the FBI and NSA's attempts to restrict encryption without backdoors. In a top-secret memo to members of President George H.W. Bush's administration including Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and CIA director Robert Gates, one White House official wrote: "Justice should go ahead now to seek a legislative fix to the digital telephony problem, and all parties should prepare to follow through on the encryption problem in about a year. Success with digital telephony will lock in one major objective; we will have a beachhead we can exploit for the encryption fix; and the encryption access options can be developed more thoroughly in the meantime."
- tptacek 14y agoI'd ask here how a bill can be a "beachhead" against encryption when it forbids the government from even requiring that telcos adopt equipment for which wiretaps are feasible, and when it specifically exempts telcos from being required to facilitate decryption.
- harshreality 14y agoFor clarity, you're talking about 103(b)(3)? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act_of_1994 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_... That doesn't look like a ward against anything, to me. It looks like a compromise stuck into the bill because of push-back from "cypherpunks". If the political winds had changed, or change in the future, that part of CALEA would be removed by a new law. I think most politicians have no problem banning strong encryption and mandating ISP decryption of it all. Even most citizens have no problem banning strong encryption.