Subject: Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation (For Treason)

From: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:12:44 -1000

Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation

Windows NT Magazine

Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - We recently published a
story regarding cryptography and IPv6, where somseone at
the Department of Justice accused Scott Bradner,

http://www.ntsecurity.net/go/2c.asp?f=/news.asp?IDF=167&TB=news

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) area coordinator,
of an anti-social act by trying to get encryption
inserted into the new protocol. Later, at an IETF meeting
where votes were taken for IPv6 encryption inclusion,
Fore System's Brian Rosen brazenly claimed that
regardless of any encryption inclusion, Fore systems
would proceed by including back doors

http://www.ntsecurity.net/go/2c.asp?f=/news.asp?IDF=177&TB=news

into any included encryption technology. But the
harrassment of the IETF doesn't stop there.

Just how far will our federal government go towards
controlling strong encryption? Apparently, very far. And
this isn't a new effort by any means. We learned that
William Allen Simpson, a Detroit-based computer
consultant who was on the IETF staff, has been
investigated by the federal government for treason
charges. Simpson was the person that argued loudly for
encryption to be included in the PPP protocol when it was
still in design phases. That push landed Simpson in hot
whatever with federal officials. Simpson learned through
friends that he was under investigation for treason --
the FBI had been interviewing his friends and associates.

Simpson obtained 54 pages of documents from the
government under the Freedom of Information act, however
the documents were heavily censored, including the
bureau's basis for the investigation. According to a ZDTV
report,

http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/cybercrime/chaostheory/story/0,3700,2398590,00.html

Simpson did learn that the FBI had accused him of
"challenging authority and laws that may impinge upon his
activities."

Wait a second! Isn't that part of what the Constitution
is all about--the means to peacefully object to the laws
of the land? I think so. And if that's true, then that
certainly positions the FBI in a bad light since it would
appear their actions are counter to the Consitutional
rights. It not against the law to develop strong
cryptography, but it is against the law to export that
technology outside of proper governmental controls. The
PPP protocol did not have encryption at the time--it was
only a suggested inclusion--so why investigate a person
for doing something completely legal?

The IETF is an open public standards body that conducts
its business in clear public view. They help stear
standards that better ensure compatibility and
interoperability. So why would the FBI investigate an
IETF member just because that person suggested in a
public meeting that strong encryption be included in a
standard wide-spread protocol such as PPP?

Source - http://www.ntsecurity.net/go/2c.asp?f=/news.asp?IDF=186&TB=news

Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for
the educational purposes of research and open discussion.

Jai Maharaj
[email-masked]
Om Shanti

---

From: Brian Lloyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:40:06 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

> We learned that
> charges. 

Having been one of those interviewed by the FBI WRT W.A. Simpson, and
having been party to the PPP activity at the time, I think I can probably
comment with a bit of authority.  Frankly, Bill brought the investigation
upon himself.

> Simpson was the person that argued loudly for
> still in design phases. 

He argued no more loudly or softly than did I or a number of other people
working on PPP at the time.  We were not investigated so clearly the
reason was NOT because he advocated encryption in PPP.

> That push landed Simpson in hot

Treason is a strong word.  Yes he was investigated for commission of a
crime but no charges were ever brought.

During my interview I asked the FBI agent what had prompted the
investigation of Mr. Simpson.  The agent stated that the FBI had received
reports that Bill Simpson had publically stated that he had actually
exported encryption technology and they were required to investigate.  He
also stated that it appeared to be a non-issue but that policy required
the investigation.  He surmised that the report had come from someone who
just wanted to cause difficulty for Mr. Simpson.

> "challenging authority and laws that may impinge upon his

Surprise, surprise!  When you make a statement like, "no one can stop me
from exporting encryption software," you leave yourself rather open to
having someone report you for breaking the law.  All someone had to say
to the FBI was, "Bill Simpson boasted that he had exported restricted
encryption software from the country."  Whether accurate or not, this
combined with his other public statements was sufficient to trigger a
routine investigation.  It doesn't appear to me that the FBI was on a
witch hunt.

> rights. 

Pardon me but, horse hocky!  We are not talking about objecting to the
laws but rather how the FBI reacted to a report of a crime.  Even tho'
they were pretty sure that they had been handed a red herring they were
still required to investigate.  Makes sense to me.

> It not against the law to develop strong

But that is not WHY he was investigated.  Bill was investigated because
someone reported that he had committed a crime.  He reinforced the
impression by making indiscrete, public comments.  His antisocial behavior
at the IETF has made him enemies here and I suspect that someone who
disliked him saw the opportunity to take advantage of Mr. Simpson's
indiscretion in order to cause him trouble.

> standard wide-spread protocol such as PPP?

<sigh> It would do you well to do a bit more research into the events
before trotting Mr. Simpson out as the party wronged by the federal
authorities.  Mr. Simpson may have been wronged but it was by someone a
bit closer to home, not by the FBI.

And before any of you get any ideas, no, it wasn't me.

> the educational purposes of research and open discussion.

Fairly?  This seems like yellow journalism to me.

> Om Shanti

Brian Lloyd
[email-masked]
+1.530.676.6513

---

From: Brian Lloyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:40:06 -0800 (PST)

Brian Lloyd
[email-masked]
+1.530.676.6513

---

From: Mark Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Dec 1999 00:17:30 -0800

> still required to investigate.  Makes sense to me.

If it's so routine, why is it so redacted?

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

---

From: Mark Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Dec 1999 00:17:30 -0800

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:49:20 -0500

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:40:06 -0800 (PST)
   From: Brian Lloyd <[email-masked]>

I'm sorry, but that doesn't strike me as completely accurate either.
The FBI is not *required* to investigate anything.  There are all sorts
of laws on the books which are outdated (including those those which
regulate what two consenting, heterosexual, married adults may do in the
privacy of their own bedroom) which the executive branch at state and
local levels have the discretion not to enforce.  The same is true at
the federal level.

If it's that easy to force the FBI to initiate such "routine
investigations", it would be pretty easy to chew up all of their
resources chasing red herrings.  This was an investigation that spanned
three calendar years, remember!  This couldn't have been cheap for the
FBI.  (Hmm... maybe more people should tell the FBI that so-and-so may
have exported encryption technology on their laptop without filing the
proper export licenses which are required, and make them spend even more
time chasing their own tails. :-)

That being said, I agree with your conclusion that it probably was
someone who got didn't like Simpson's sometimes quite abrasive personal
style, and decided to make some trouble for Bill.  It's not what I would
consider professional behaviour, but there's no way we can really judge
the motives of whoever it was decided to call the FBI and sic them on
Simpson.

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.

							- Ted

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:49:20 -0500

- Ted