RSS
Often Technology, Not Politics, Drives Policy Changes
from the technology-matters dept
Computer science professor Matt Blaze critiques a recent New Yorker profile of Michael McConnell, the man who is leading the Bush administration's charge for more warrantless wiretapping powers. I hadn't realized until I read Blaze's post that McConnell was also responsible for the clipper chip, a hardware crypto device from the early 1990s that would have given the government a "backdoor" to intercept encrypted communications. The New Yorker profile suggests that the clipper chip was killed by political pressures, but the reality was rather different. The decisive blow against the chip was Blaze himself, who discovered and published major security flaws in the chip's algorithms in 1994. Even if Blaze hadn't found those flaws when he did, the more fundamental problem was that the clipper chip relied on the fact that computers weren't yet fast enough to do secure crypto in software at reasonable speeds. But as Moore's law continued to improve the power of desktop computers, hardware crypto acceleration became unnecessary. And because it's a lot harder to stop the spread of software than of hardware, government officials realized that they no longer had any hope of limiting who would have access to the technology.
This may be a reason not to be too pessimistic about the long-term outcome of the FISA debate. While it looks likely that Congress will capitulate to the president and grant him broader wiretapping powers, peoples' privacy is likely to be driven more by technological changes (say, the availability of encrypted VoIP software on cell phones) than the exact rules regarding when warrants are required. It remains to be seen whether technological progress will strengthen the government's eavesdropping capabilities faster than it strengthens individuals' ability to evade it, but either way, policymakers' choices will continue to be sharply constrained by changes in technology.
8 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- It's Time To Let Politicians Know That Using Secretive Trade Agreements To Meddle With The Internet Is Unacceptable
- SOPA Strikedown Aftermath: Old Media Cannot Tell The Narrative Of One Million People
- Hollywood Still Doesn't Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now
- Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues... In A Payroll Tax Bill?
- Senator Wyden Attacked For Actually Trying To Get Stuff Done, Rather Than Playing Partisan Politics
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
This is rediculous.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Oops, pressed enter
Anyway, the idea that we have to secure our communications against a government is plain ludicrous in my opinion. They should be the ones protecting our privacy, not making us have to buy cryptography software.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yes and No
So yes, it is absurd that you have to protect yourself from your own government, but that is the history of the entire world, we are not special now.
Yes, go forth, protect yourself from your government! It is a noble cause. It is not beneath you, it is your duty.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Somewhat bad example
Sure, if you have the time and technical know-how you can "unlock" your phone or find some way to hack it so that you can load your own applications on it. But the people who can or do do that represent probably less than 1% of the market. Not only that, but I doubt that it would take much persuading from the government to convince the carriers to claim some sort of IP violation against people who do. Or more likely, for congress to pass a law outlawing such tinkering. So now you can be a criminal for wanting privacy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
blog review for our site
We would like to know if you could write a blog review for our website http://www.brochuremonster.com on your blog.
If yes, please let us know your rates. We are ready to offer free product samples for testing if required.
Best Regards,
John Davis
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: blog review for our site
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Nice article -by arul vigg.
by arul vigg.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Somewhat bad example
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment