I don't usually send crypto-stuff to nanog, but folks here might want to
check out the second graf. --Declan
One last point: here are some excerpts from the transcript that amplify
Freeh's argument about ISPs (and backbone providers?). --Declan
MR. FREEH:
We work, as you know, particularly in the
pedophile cases, with on-line services who give us,
For God's sake, what is the obsession with pedophiles?? How many
pedophiles pgp encode their porn??
What a sad state.
I would have at least been amused by an original argument, but to pull out
the pedophile trump-card... Someone's desperate.
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Sprickman Internet Channel
INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200
spork@inch.com access@inch.com
> MR. FREEH:
> We work, as you know, particularly in the
> pedophile cases, with on-line services who give us,For God's sake, what is the obsession with pedophiles?? How many
pedophiles pgp encode their porn??
With the rest of porn, it's probably desireable to encourage encryption to
confuse the kiddies. 
What a sad state.
I would have at least been amused by an original argument, but to pull out
the pedophile trump-card... Someone's desperate.
I wonder that they're so worried about it. This doesn't seem the case in
Europe .. it's like we really gotta fight crime, as we have so much of it,
but we never think why we have all this crime, and if maybe we're not just
chasing ourselves in circles worrying over it. 
For God's sake, what is the obsession with pedophiles?? How many
pedophiles pgp encode their porn??What a sad state.
I would have at least been amused by an original argument, but to pull out
the pedophile trump-card... Someone's desperate.
Yep. Here's a report from June.
-Declan
> MR. FREEH:
> We work, as you know, particularly in the
> pedophile cases, with on-line services who give us,For God's sake, what is the obsession with pedophiles?? How many
pedophiles pgp encode their porn??
(I was going to ignore this thread too, as it's way off charter, but I
can't resist this one)
Isn't it obvious? Seems so to me, certainly is if you've followed the gun
control debates of the years.
In order to prevent widespread use of encryption, which the US government,
as well as virtually all governments, are depserate to do, you have to
garner some support from the voters.
If you point out how it (strong encryption) helps businesses expand on the
Internet and helps them buy stuff on the net they'll never want to ban it.
If, on the other hand, you point out all the "evil" uses of it, build a
straw man case of it being used by terrorists, drug lords, pedophiles, tax
evaders, satan worshippers, etc, then you garner support.
After all, who will stand up to their congressman for the right of
pedophiles to encrypt their wicked graphics? Of terrorists to plot their
evil plots in secret?
So we end up with law enforcement and spook agencies decrying the
pedophiles and wanting to "maintain the status quo" of being able to tap
anyone's phone line. And you get nonsense statements to give voters warm
fuzzies, like "airbags in a car".
What a sad state.
Indeed.
I would have at least been amused by an original argument, but to pull out
the pedophile trump-card... Someone's desperate.
You have to pull out the pedophile card, because the drug-lord key phrase
has been so overused for the last decade that it doesn't elicit the
desired response anymore.
And I agree about the desperation.
--- David Miller