Subject: Re: Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation (For Treason)

From: "Robert G. Ferrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:29:59 -0600 (CST)

>The other thing to keep in mind was this was back in 1991, when it
>wasn't quite so obvious to all concerned that the attempts by the NSA
>and FBI to restict encryption was as misguided and as futile as it is
>now.  So what is obviously stupid and ridiculous behaviour on the FBI's
>part in 1999 might not have been so ridiculous eight years ago.  As I
>recall, back then the FBI was still trying to figure out how to spell
>"Internet", let alone figure out what it meant.

Folks,

I realize that FBI-bashing is _de rigeur_ these days, and I'll admit that I find 
that a certain (small) percentage of what I've seen in print is justified, but 
I'd also like to state for the record that I'm quite familiar with the average  
rank-and-file FBI Special Agent, and know the overwhelming majority of them to 
be decent, honest, hard-working folks who have an amazing variety of crap dumped 
on them every day from a lot of different directions.  It's true that only now 
are they starting to get a decent comprehension of the vast jungle that is the 
Internet, but if you'll look at what Congress allocates them to use to pay 
salaries, you'll understand one of the reasons that FBI Agent is not high on 
most CS majors' list of prospective careers (being shot at on a regular basis 
and called every name in the book by people who think all federal law 
enforcement is evil are high on the list, as well).  In the field offices, a lot 
of the day-to-day cybercrime stuff is handled by accountants and other 
white-collar crime investigators who came to work one day and found themselves 
assigned as computer crime cops.  If they're lucky, they might be able to talk 
HQ into giving them some training.  Eventually.  Of course, they still have to 
take turns on SWAT and other special duties, as well (and you don't get "combat 
pay" in the FBI).  My response to this situation has been to volunteer to help 
educate them whenever possible, and answer questions they have if I can.  You'd 
be surprised how much difference you can make, if you try.

While I think that continuing constructive critical dialogue is essential to the 
health of the nation and its government, I also think that acknowledging the 
fact that most FBI agents do the very best they can with what they have is 
important, as well.  It's satisfying and entertaining to criticize cops and call 
them stupid, but my guess is that we'd be a lot worse off without them...

Just my opinion, of course.

RGF

Robert G. Ferrell
Internet Technologist
National Business Center, US DoI
[email-masked]

---

From: Mark Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Dec 1999 09:17:56 -0800

"Robert G. Ferrell" <[email-masked]> writes:
> be decent, honest, hard-working folks

The fact that the "rank and file" are "decent and honest", does not
prevent the organization from being clueless, politicised, wholely
owned, misguided, heavyhanded, and often criminal.

-- 
Mark Atwood               | 
[email-masked]             | 
http://www.pobox.com/~mra |

---

From: Mark Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Dec 1999 09:17:56 -0800

---

From: Mark Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Dec 1999 09:24:10 -0800

"Robert G. Ferrell" <[email-masked]> writes:

> My response to this situation has been to [...] answer questions
> they have if I can.  You'd be surprised how much difference you can
> make, if you try.

That is very thoughtful of you, yet personally foolish. (*Not* a
personal attack or disparagment of your intellect.) There are many
many people who thought they were just "helping out" cops, "answerings
a few questions", "helping them understand", who found themselves on
the business end of an inditement, often a misguided one.

Even if you educate the agent you are talking to, he has peers and
superiours who are clueless and looking for "points".

The ONLY ONLY ONLY thing you ever say to a LEO is "no" and "speak to
my lawyer".

---

From: Mark Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Dec 1999 09:24:10 -0800

---

From: Jim Thompson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 11:58:25 -0600

>The ONLY ONLY ONLY thing you ever say to a LEO is "no" and "speak to

"Officer, I want to co-operate with you, but wish my lawyer to be present 
during questioning."
It delivers a nice message to the LEO, and plays very well in court.

This is IETF content?

---

From: Jim Thompson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 11:58:25 -0600

This is IETF content?

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:23:47 -0800

At 09:29 AM 12/2/99 -0600, Robert G. Ferrell wrote:
>While I think that continuing constructive critical dialogue is essential to 
>the health of the nation and its government, I also think that acknowledging 
>the fact that most FBI agents do the very best they can with what they have 
>is important, as well.  It's satisfying and entertaining to criticize cops
and 
>call them stupid, but my guess is that we'd be a lot worse off without them...
>

For the record, mine as well. If there is a current issue here, that has a
bearing on IETF procedure, I think we should surface and discuss that, but
I'm concerned with the tone of the discussion so far, and don't see its
immediate relevance to protocol development in the present time frame.

I have sent a private note to Bill and Scott asking if there are further
issues the IESG should be concerned about.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:23:47 -0800

and