Op-Eds

Comey vs. Crypto: The Last Banzai Charge

Leave a comment

 

Imperial Japanese Army soldiers give a banzai ...
Imperial Japanese Army soldiers give a banzai cheer. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

At the end of World War II, Second Lieutenant Hiro Onoda of the Imperial Japanese Army dismissed rumors of his country’s surrender, fading into the Philippine jungle to fight on.  He held out for 29 years before, still dressed in his dilapidated uniform, he surrendered his sword to his former commanding officer in 1974.

Every time an American politician or bureaucrat floats some cockamamie new scheme to ban, handicap or regulate strong encryption of computer data, I think of Onoda.

The Crypto Wars began in 1991 when Phil Zimmerman released the first version of PGP (“Pretty Good Privacy”), a tool that made strong encryption available to the masses worldwide. The wars essentially ended at the same time.  A few bitter dead-enders held out until the mid-1990s, firing off silly proposals for programs like the Clipper Chip and “key escrow,” but it quickly became apparent to most that the strong encryption genie isn’t going back into the bottle.

So here comes FBI director James Comey, waving a rusty samurai sword and screaming “banzai!” as he once again charges the enemy lines, 24 years after his side’s defeat.

Testifying before the US Senate’s intelligence committee in early July,  Comey trotted out the latest alleged threat —  Islamic State militants using strong crypto to protect their communications — and complained that “[i]n recent months … we have on a new scale seen mainstream products and services designed in a way that gives users sole control over access to their data.”

He says that like it’s a bad thing. It isn’t.

He envisions a “solution” in which software and communications providers use strong encryption that works, except when Comey wants to read your email. Even if empowering him to read your email wasn’t a very bad idea, no such solution exists.

A back door for James Comey is a back door for everyone else, too. If the encryption is broken, it’s broken.

The bad guys will always have encryption. Encryption is math and computer code. It’s free, it’s in the wild, and it will remain so. If American companies hobble their encryption, those who don’t like their encryption hobbled will get good crypto elsewhere. Shikata ga nai (“it can’t be helped”).

As for the rest of us, Comey tends toward the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” line. Oddly, I never hear that line coming from him when Wikileaks, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden reveal HIS organization’s secrets.

We use encryption for the same reason we put our snail mail in envelopes: We only want it to be read by the intended recipient. Dealing with that is Comey’s job. Catering to his voyeurism with “back doors” isn’t our obligation.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 
 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

 

Op-Eds

Election 2016: Scott Walker vs. “Government Dependence”

Leave a comment
English: Scott Walker on February 18, 2011
Scott Walker (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Announcing his presidential candidacy on July 13, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker touched on a familiar theme: “Helping adults who are able to work transition from government dependence to true independence,” he said, “will help more people live [the American Dream].”

I call the theme “familiar” because Google returns more than 5,000 results on Walker’s name and the phrase “government dependence.” He seems to have focused on it for many years. And on a quick read of his biography, I doff my cap to his stature as world-class expert on the topic.

Apart from some part-time sales work in college and a short stint at the Red Cross, Scott Walker seems to have spent his entire adult life as a “government dependent.”

He made his first run for political office in 1990 and was elected to Wisconsin’s state legislature in 1993. From there, he moved on to become chief executive of Milwaukee County, and after that (on his second try) governor of the state.

For 22 years, this political careerist has suckled continuously — not to say tenderly — at the taxpayers’ breast. When he gets up in the morning, the taxpayer buys his bacon and eggs and the hot water in his shower. When he goes to bed at night, the taxpayer pays for the pillow upon which Walker doth rest his weary head. In between, the taxpayer provides the chair which cradles his entitled posterior.

Now he’s asking  the taxpayer to move him into the big house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for four (or better yet, eight) years and pay him, per Wikipedia, “a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.”

After that he expects the taxpayer to provide him with, per the Former Presidents Act, a $200k+ annual pension, $20,000 per year for his spouse (if she relinquishes any political positions she holds), money for the “transition” from life as president to that of mere mortal, nearly $100k per year for personal staff, lifetime Secret Service protection, and exclusive use of a “presidential townhouse” when visiting Washington, DC.

OK, I say uncle: Scott Walker is indeed the world’s living authority on “government dependence.” Whether or not he makes the best poster boy for a platform of ending such dependence is another question entirely. I’m going to go out on a limb here and answer “probably not.”

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

The Iran Deal: What You Need to Know

2 Comments
Foreign Ministers of Germany, the US, Great Br...
Foreign Ministers of Germany, the US, Great Britain, France, Russia and China in Berlin discussing Iran nuclear program March 2006 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

At last, the P5+1 (the US, the UK, Germany, France, Russia and China) have announced an agreement with Iran limiting that country’s nuclear research program. Supporters of the deal proclaim “peace in our time.” Opponents cry “Munich!” Which side should you believe? Neither, really. But the deal’s supporters have the better case.

Here’s what you need to know about the deal:

First, it’s not about peace or war. War with Iran isn’t a viable option for the United States, which would necessarily do the heavy lifting. An air war wouldn’t cow Iran or destroy its nuclear capability. And having lost two ground wars against less populous and less well-armed opponents since 2001, the US is in no shape to undertake a third.

Second, it’s not about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Why? Because Iran has no nuclear weapons program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found some discrepancies in Iran’s Non-Proliferation Treaty reporting, but Iran’s religious “supreme leader” has declared development of such weapons a sin against Islam, and western intelligence agencies (including those of the US and Israel) say there’s no evidence of such development.

Since it’s not about war or nuclear proliferation, what is it about? Two things: International trade and US prestige.

Iran boasts huge oil reserves and a population of more than 75 million. They want to trade with other countries. Other countries want to trade with them. Decades of sanctions have left everyone poorer than they ought to be.

US prestige as “leader of the free world” is at stake because at least three of the P5+1 nations — Russia, China and France — will likely make their own deals with Iran even if the US bucks out. The UK and Germany might or might not stick with the US in that event. The choice for the US is to jump to the front of the parade and continue to “lead,” or else to find itself on the sidelines.

So, why the opposition among congresspeople and Republican presidential aspirants? Again, two reasons.

The first is simple power politics. American politicians and Iranian politicians have a lot in common — both groups want to run Iran. American politicians got used to doing so after the CIA overthrew Iran’s government and replaced it with a puppet regime in 1953. They’ve been throwing a temper tantrum ever since Iranians revolted in 1979. The tantrum continues.

The second reason is Israel. The Israelis fear Iranian dominance in the region and want the US to keep a lid on Iran. The Israeli lobby exerts a powerful force on US politics, both because evangelical Christian voters attach religious importance to Israel and because Israeli patrons like billionaire Sheldon Adelson write big checks to politicians who reach for the sky when Benjamin Netanyahu says “jump.”

Neither of these reasons are GOOD reasons. Peace and trade are better than cold war and sanctions. The US is better off running its own foreign policy than subordinating itself to Israel.  This deal is good for America.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY