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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: politics, technology
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is rediculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somewhat bad example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: blog review for our site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice article -by arul vigg.
by arul vigg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]