Mandatory Key Escrow: Goodnight!
Guy Berliner
For those of you who like your arguments short and sweet to tell to
your friends...
Let me, in a thimble, deliver the most damning possible reductio ad
absurdum to Mandatory Key Escrow. To concisely sum up many of the long
winded arguments I have presented: MKE could come in two flavors.
The first flavor, a ban on nonescrowed encryption altogether (or if you
prefer, limited to "common carriers"; it matters little), is a
nonstarter. It doesn't stand a chance of passing constitutional
muster for reasons that are apparent to anyone reading this. There
is no magic bullet that a defender of MKE could find to defend
against every possible analogy that could be used to make MKE
look ridiculous. Why not ban Mandarin Chinese? Why not ban
whispering? Read my last contribution to the thread "Sense or
Nonsense of Mandatory Key Escrow."
The second flavor of MKE would be a ban on "nonescrowed encryption
used in furtherance of a crime." This flavor might pass constitutional
muster. In fact, it would escape many of the most serious objections
to MKE that are usually raised. But it would also be worthless, for
equally obvious reasons as the first flavor: "Let's see. Should I use
nonescrowed or escrowed PGP today? Well, I don't have any plans to commit
a crime with it at the moment, so I think I'll use nonescrowed." Such a
law, although it might not encounter much opposition, would make for
plenty of good jokes on the Letterman show. No doubt if I am a criminal,
I would never dream of doing something so heinous as compounding my crime
by also using nonescrowed encryption!
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLsbKF4sZvoZ68B9BAQGd0AP9FBOZvYR1AXJyy2OxrCOfHMQGqoSH8vfA
B+pQi9W03W6NMakwO40jWX3FkTjg+qn3W0L0kTdnvCjvDYN0YorzWlG2dd2vAtnP
Z209lod6735hi08swIEseMecAHKYcDQ2CASrwX8JzUr2OyH82YUNjBKhBeNG21ct
irO0mzqnnKA=
=q7jQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Finger berl...@netcom18.netcom.com for pgp key.
Bill Unruh
>For those of you who like your arguments short and sweet to tell to
>your friends...
...
>nonstarter. It doesn't stand a chance of passing constitutional
>muster for reasons that are apparent to anyone reading this. There
>is no magic bullet that a defender of MKE could find to defend
>against every possible analogy that could be used to make MKE
>look ridiculous. Why not ban Mandarin Chinese? Why not ban
>whispering? Read my last contribution to the thread "Sense or
>Nonsense of Mandatory Key Escrow."
ANY law suffers from this problem of being parodied by being made more
extreme than it is. (How can you require me to license my car? Are you
going to require me to license my pencil next?) Most laws pass
constitutional muster. The courts look only at the law as written, not
as it might have been written.
>The second flavor of MKE would be a ban on "nonescrowed encryption
>used in furtherance of a crime." This flavor might pass constitutional
>muster. In fact, it would escape many of the most serious objections
>to MKE that are usually raised. But it would also be worthless, for
>equally obvious reasons as the first flavor: "Let's see. Should I use
>nonescrowed or escrowed PGP today? Well, I don't have any plans to
commit
>a crime with it at the moment, so I think I'll use nonescrowed." Such a
>law, although it might not encounter much opposition, would make for
>plenty of good jokes on the Letterman show. No doubt if I am a
criminal,
>I would never dream of doing something so heinous as compounding my
crime
>by also using nonescrowed encryption!
And the opposition would say- "So what are your worries? Sometimes it is
effective. Some criminals are stupid (see the World Trade Center bombers
who gave themselves up because they did not want to lose a piddling
deposit on the van) This is probably the greatest danger that the
opponents of this law face, and is part of the reason it will be hard to
defeat.
Jim Grubs, W8GRT
berl...@netcom.com (Guy Berliner) writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> For those of you who like your arguments short and sweet to tell to
> your friends...
>
I think what will eventually come to pass will be that encryption will
be declared to be a form of obstruction of justice or "flight" to avoid
prosecution. So, if it isn't used for that, it'll be OK. Or is that too
optimistic?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLsf3FN74r4kaz3mVAQGBlAQAoiEB44IK7cP0WUnHRikVpFr7nvjqUQRF
DPoRUSMmqw7IpY3qiHmltfL3UhRfsKx1LEtCibLHNKLQwAi/D4i6J+DSzbNSPtc4
iNDyURsTzhr+dRlUJEx6kQJps7WoTm89HXX2HQsDIu30qwrummSojZ7MV+zZkTJk
M8Vc0XgTAPc=
=aurX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
...
"The people have spoken! Thank God for the people!" - Me
--
jgr...@voxbox.norden1.com
William Unruh
>Regarding comments of Larry Cipriani in this thread:
>The issue here is not just "right to privacy," but also "right to free
>speech," regarding which, please see my latest followup in the thread
There are many limitations of free speach on public carriers, if the
congress and courts consider it necessary to an orderly working of
society. (eg, equal access, licensing and loss of licenses if the
station does not live up to its mandate, etc). I have absolutely no
doubt that the supreme court would not regard no use of crypto as a
limitation on free speach if you could say the same thing in the clear
on those carriers.
--
Bill Unruh
Guy Berliner
: berl...@netcom.com (Guy Berliner) writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Regulations there may be. Perhaps even "many regulations." There
are exceedingly few if any regulations that touch on "political
speech." That's because the courts have been known to apply
excruciatingly strict standards to anything that could qualify
as "political speech." Most of the regulations that there are,
including all those you refer to, are content-neutral. This
case is very, very different.
I have about equally little doubt that you are wrong. You assume
that there is always some primordial "cleartext" which is conveyed
by any message, the ciphertext being nothing but a contentless
wrapper. You neglect that the act of sending the ciphertext
itself can be quite reasonably regarded as a statement. Everytime
I send a ciphertext message, I'm asserting something about my
rights and engaging in an overtly political form of speech. There's
no way the content of the assertion could be the same if I'd just
nicely and obediently complied with the FBI's preferences and used
their favored form of crippled crypto. Unless the government can show
a STRONG and COMPELLING interest in suppressing this speech, it must
lose in the courts. This case will be all the more difficult to make
in the face of a test case where someone has been found "guilty" of
nothing save violating the nonescrowed crypto ban by sending an
otherwise wholly innocent letter to a friend over the public carriers.
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLshvcYsZvoZ68B9BAQFapQP/f07PZ4Irt9Qc8MfmyD/WfVt8Nqo8I4qN
FpAw0p4f0NMnR7oT0625hK3iIRPVC88mclD3XaCN6+JDkn+tANyDD2pINMu3hVyD
GQAA4RLoL0OGm4QN0VNddC3S5fnCZhoaudWZl8zNUhi77+KecKwg3cs5lRHGuKp5
M2LRdDrsbEQ=
=rU8W
Guy Berliner
Bill, answer me this question; the answer is either yes or no. The
premise of a restriction on speech that specifies one must use only
escrowed crypto (if any) is: The government can require that a person
communicating over the channels of our public "information infrastruc-
ture" do so only in a fashion that enables the plain meaning of the
communication in question to be apprehended by authorities under court
order. If that is not the premise under which escrowed crypto is jus-
tified, please explain to me what the premise is. You may make allow-
ances for the fact that the "plain meaning" may not itself be under-
standable by persons not familiar with the subject matter of the dis-
cussion. The point is, the premise under which escrowed crypto is
promoted is that: the government can require that any impediments to
clear understanding of a message that are intentionally imposed upon
that message by the originator must only be imposed in such a way as
to leave the government a routine recourse for removing those impediments.
If you don't agree that this is a necessary premise, and indeed the chief
premise, you must offer some alternative. If you do, you must show that
such a requirement is reasonable. I'm at a loss to see how one could do
so in the face of the multitude of "extreme" (as you'd call them) measures
that could be equally well justified by such a premise. The courts will
require from the government a premise for this restriction on speech that
cannot be taken to justify too many other sweeping restrictions. This is
a routine requirement used in ruling on speech restrictions.
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLsh+wIsZvoZ68B9BAQGNhAP/XoxNyykmermkWxBv/J2i4FvYM1N5irfK
GgpMHEDm4bAKtqaPDgP6Tgq49bqTGoz3a0jCo2V+Ii6dXZaTipt8/ZJu94mfkfyn
aB/4hLka6DO1X/DZeJ7JFGzeQQ3TDj3R4Okpzm4xcfS8+Zfsa3AlwWkBJytVltW8
FB1PD/8tkfo=
=GaEc
Guy Berliner
: In article <berlinerC...@netcom.com>,
: Guy Berliner <berl...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: >
: >For those of you who like your arguments short and sweet to tell to
: >your friends...
: >Let me, in a thimble, deliver the most damning possible reductio ad
: >absurdum to Mandatory Key Escrow. To concisely sum up many of the long
: >winded arguments I have presented: MKE could come in two flavors.
: >prefer, limited to "common carriers"; it matters little), is a
: >muster for reasons that are apparent to anyone reading this.
: What matters is what the US Supreme Court would rule. They already
: ruled there is no informational right to privacy, so I'm doubtful
: they would rule non-MKE is protected.
: >There is no magic bullet that a defender of MKE could find to defend
: >against every possible analogy that could be used to make MKE
: >look ridiculous. Why not ban Mandarin Chinese? Why not ban
: >whispering? Read my last contribution to the thread "Sense or
: >Nonsense of Mandatory Key Escrow."
: Where in the Constitution does it say that laws have to be consistent
: or sensible ?
: >The second flavor of MKE would be a ban on "nonescrowed encryption
: >used in furtherance of a crime." This flavor might pass constitutional
: >muster. In fact, it would escape many of the most serious objections
: >to MKE that are usually raised. But it would also be worthless, for
: >equally obvious reasons as the first flavor: "Let's see. Should I use
: >nonescrowed or escrowed PGP today? Well, I don't have any plans to commit
: >a crime with it at the moment, so I think I'll use nonescrowed."
: It's not all that rediculous from the governments perspective, since it
: can be invoked when a crime was discovered and the criminals used PGP in
: furtherance of that crime. This is perfectly analogous to the weapons
: law in Vermont which says you may carry concealed on your person a
: firearm except in furtherance of a crime [no permit required]. If you
: do a crime and you are carrying a weapon you get nailed for an additional
: penalty besides the crime you committed. The purpose of that law is to
: discourage use of weapons by criminals. Likewise for non-MKE.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Regarding comments of Larry Cipriani in this thread:
The issue here is not just "right to privacy," but also "right to free
speech," regarding which, please see my latest followup in the thread
"Sense or Nonsense of Mandatory Key Escrow." Also, my point about the
addition of the words "in furtherance of a crime" to a ban on nonescrowed
crypto was that such a law would be largely irrelevant to both most users
and to the FBI, the chief proponent of such a measure. The whole reason
the FBI wants a ban is not so they can get tougher sentences on crooks
(regarding which, please read an earlier post in the thread "Sense or
Nonsense," in which I show the futility of such a goal). The reason, so
they themselves say, is so they can get ahold of any plaintext message
over the public carriers without hindrance from encryption.
As to perfect consistency, there is not a requirement for it. But if
you'll see some recent posts of mine in the thread "Sense or Nonsense,"
you'll see why I think the courts will force the government to be con-
sistent on this issue.
Also, crypto bans and weapons bans ("in furtherance of a crime") are not
nearly so perfectly analogous as you suppose. I address this question
in one of my earlier posts as well (the really LOOONG one in the thread
"Sense or Nonsense").
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLsfGXYsZvoZ68B9BAQE1oQQAko0ApMspGB1xioEiHBHPDJXFw5rjkqwe
nLUD5Fx+BVOocDd+el85nApKujvgZYpFmdxiRDzieT6+kPPZjm1JR0gt0I9SPWee
vm2NZTNag6eWsqJmZknj7H/WkPE/nI/z+TGiNIlMLYrd4KBx3kP67Y4G0p84cEPx
PFfLoELEBbs=
=tel4
Padgett 0sirius
>Let me, in a thimble, deliver the most damning possible reductio ad
>absurdum to Mandatory Key Escrow.
I respecfully disagree. At least to me what makes the concept of MKE silly
is that the burden would be on the government to prove that crypto had been
used at all.
True *today's* crypto is easy to detect because no one has had any reason to
make it otherwise. We believe PGP is unbreakable at the moment so by
advertising the fact we save everyone time and effort (and give Phil a
plug). This does not have to be true.
Second, the gov has not always has free understanding of communications. In
the days of the telegraph, each company had little books of code words to
be used for communications and the gov never required these to be escrowed.
Further, I suspect that the most vigorous opponents of MKE to be the
international financial and insurance institutions who may have been the
first user's of crypto and I am not talking about just in this century. Of
course their lobbying will not be public.
Personally, I still think the clip chips have a place as the first *cheap*,
easy to use crypto available to everyone. $99 clip phones from ratshack with
modem connection is a very real possibility. As I have said before, the
crypto is the least interesting thing about Clipper/Capstone/Fortezza, it is
the *autoignition* capability that is what has been missing from everything
thusfar.
Their availability does not mean I am going to stop using PGP (or something
less obvious when needed), just that there will be a cheap alternative
for those things (most of what I do) in which I do not *care* if the gov
reads it.
A. Padgett Peterson, P.E.
Cybernetic Psychophysicist
We also walk dogs
PGP 2.7 Public Key Available
William Unruh
>itself can be quite reasonably regarded as a statement. Everytime
>I send a ciphertext message, I'm asserting something about my
>rights and engaging in an overtly political form of speech. There's
Well I could argue the same thing if I send out stuff with my little
home transmitter tuned to 600KHz (ie in the middle of the AM band)
However, I suspect that the defense would be a rather shakey one at
best. Crypto is a content neutral technology, just as broadcasting is.
However in the absense of more expert opinion (eg by someone up on the
implications and limitations of the free speach ammendmant) we are now
just demonstrating the limits of our knowledge.
I also think that relying on the courts to save us from MKE is a futile
position and is council of desperation. Furhtermore, I personally feel
that such an appeal to free speach as an argument against MKE to
Congressmen would not be very productive, but again, it might convince a
few, though I would not rely on it.
--
Bill Unruh
un...@physics.ubc.ca
Mark Rygh
> be declared to be a form of obstruction of justice or "flight" to avoid
> prosecution. So, if it isn't used for that, it'll be OK. Or is that too
> optimistic?
I think this is a quite possible. If I remember correctly, there is a
law against using radios (walkie talkies) in the commision of a crime,
but no law for "normal" use.
-Mark
--
Mark Rygh <ry...@rahul.net>
Ken Pizzini
William Unruh <un...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>There are many limitations of free speach on public carriers, if the
>congress and courts consider it necessary to an orderly working of
>society. (eg, equal access, licensing and loss of licenses if the
>station does not live up to its mandate, etc). I have absolutely no
>doubt that the supreme court would not regard no use of crypto as a
>limitation on free speach if you could say the same thing in the clear
>on those carriers.
I've heard this "licencing of the airwaves" counterexample many times,
but in my understanding the broadcast spectrum is not treated
as a "common carrier", which the likes of the telephone network
qualify for. Could someone please clarify this for me?
--Ken Pizzini
T. Erik Browne
>that there is always some primordial "cleartext" which is conveyed
>by any message, the ciphertext being nothing but a contentless
>wrapper. You neglect that the act of sending the ciphertext
>itself can be quite reasonably regarded as a statement. Everytime
>I send a ciphertext message, I'm asserting something about my
>rights and engaging in an overtly political form of speech.
I could say that I don't agree with the laws against murder, so I will kill
you. Breaking the law, even if it is a form of civil disobedience, is not
necessarily protected speech. I have little confidence in a court finding
crypto in the same league as, say, burning the flag.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Erik Browne | Unemployed...
tbr...@thuban.ac.hmc.edu | ...no disclaimer necessary
tbr...@netcom.com | finger @netcom for pgp key
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My dear child, don't be so gleeful when you talk about hacking at people
with swords."
Hal
don't think he is necessarily happy about it but there are plenty of
laws enfoced every day that many people would say are unreasonable. I
would suggest that Guy read some court decisions.
un...@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
>However I do not see any problem legally with procedures like
>PGP, DES etc (the law could even have a "list" just like ITAR has which
>the executive branch could add to of what is considered cryptography.
>RSA, DES, IDEA, ... and anytime a new technique came up, they would add
>it to the list. Thus you might be able to produce a technique which is
>not on the list and use it, but as soon as it became popular, it would
>be added.
This kind of thing has happened with illegal drugs. Somebody synthesizes
a new stimulant or people start smoking some new weed. If it catches
on, it gets added to the list of proscribed substances.
What would be the "premise" behind the drug laws? "The government
has the right to keep people from harming themselves," perhaps? But
this would outlaw a host of activities. Therefore judges are sure to
strike down all drug convictions. What's wrong with this picture?
Hal Finney
hfi...@shell.portal.com
Guy Berliner
: Unfortunately, I think that what Bill Unruh is saying makes sense. I
: un...@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
What is wrong is that you neglect the very real possibility of
challenging this thinking on the grounds that what is at issue
is an exercise of political speech. I won't deny there are pre-
cedents for wrongheaded laws being upheld on shaky grounds.
I won't deny that the state could win--but it could also lose.
Particularly in this case where we would make the powerful case
that what is at issue is political free speech rights. Political
speech is privileged with powerful constitutional protections and
high court precedents that could be used to great effect. Did I hear
someone say the words "flag burning"? Sheesh, if flag burning laws
could be struck down on political speech grounds, why the hell not
crypto bans too?! Afterall, flag burning in itself could very
reasonably be argued not to be a speech act at all--indeed, it
could well pose a clear and present danger to public safety.
On the other hand, I will fully agree with Bill Unruh on one point:
I'd far prefer to head this off in the legislative and/or executive
branches than have to fight it back in the courts. Speaking of which,
please read my posts in the new thread "Cryptevangelism: Winning the
War for Strong Crypto," for a practical plan and concrete proposals
for action.
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLsk9MosZvoZ68B9BAQHGmAP/e5NykTSB5/C1AZURcCEcf4DiACmBQUl2
kk63T8r/d66jh6/tlZTFOIr45YhIlzRpBmkqwYDeIxY9ULVYoRcBN2eDxRVkZXUm
9Ns79ZQ4ScycU2z5oL8mmcx+hQdnmBHcOFR2T7o9BfGMMw9PXD+M3aAAwsaOBC05
Bl9rGlpChJo=
=F6if
William Unruh
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Bill, answer me this question; the answer is either yes or no. The
>premise of a restriction on speech that specifies one must use only
>escrowed crypto (if any) is: The government can require that a person
>communicating over the channels of our public "information infrastruc-
>ture" do so only in a fashion that enables the plain meaning of the
>communication in question to be apprehended by authorities under court
>order. If that is not the premise under which escrowed crypto is jus-
Yes that is probably the justification. However it also carries with it
an assumption of the nature of the hiding of the meaning- namelyt the
use of a specific type of technical transformation of the communication
which is simple, automatic, mathematically based, etc. (ie what is
usually considered to be mathematical cryptography) Sure there will be
borderline cases where it is unclear whether or not the hiding in
question is cryptography or not, but the courts are used to dealing with
such borderline cases (ALL laws have them). At that point other
considerations like the constitutional free speach provisions etc would
enter. However I do not see any problem legally with procedures like
PGP, DES etc (the law could even have a "list" just like ITAR has which
the executive branch could add to of what is considered cryptography.
RSA, DES, IDEA, ... and anytime a new technique came up, they would add
it to the list. Thus you might be able to produce a technique which is
not on the list and use it, but as soon as it became popular, it would
be added. This would however entirely kill something like PGP or other
crypto for the masses, except for MKE (mandatory key escrow).
It would also answer the use of crypto laws against criminals since I
think we can alll assume that the criminals in general are not capable
of creating strong crypto.
A reason for a law need not be overpowering (ie any time that reason can
be applied, it completely justifies the law). A reason can be contextual.
Ie, a reason can be sufficient in some circumstances but insufficient
in others. (eg the reason can be good enough for mathematical crypto,
but not for outlawing the use of Mandarin) This does not invalidate the
reason for the law in the specific instances to which the law applies.
This is precisely the objection I have had all along to your arguments.
They are based on the proemise that if there is a reason for the law,
anytime that reason can be used must therefor have equal validity. The
law does not work that way, and your arguments based on that assumption
will therefor carry no weight to anyone who at all familiar with the way
laws work (and we hope that this includes most of Congress since they
make the laws.)
>promoted is that: the government can require that any impediments to
No not ANY. Just specific types of impediments, namely mathematical
crypto.
>clear understanding of a message that are intentionally imposed upon
>that message by the originator must only be imposed in such a way as
>to leave the government a routine recourse for removing those impediments.
>If you don't agree that this is a necessary premise, and indeed the chief
>premise, you must offer some alternative. If you do, you must show that
>such a requirement is reasonable. I'm at a loss to see how one could do
>so in the face of the multitude of "extreme" (as you'd call them) measures
>that could be equally well justified by such a premise. The courts will
To repeat, reasons can be good in one case and not good enough in
others. A reason does not have to be universally good.
>require from the government a premise for this restriction on speech that
>cannot be taken to justify too many other sweeping restrictions. This is
>a routine requirement used in ruling on speech restrictions.
That is why the law (unless incompetently drafted) will not say "any
hidding of meaning except by MKE is illegal" It will say something like
"any use of mathematical cryptography other than Escrowed Key crypto is
illegal" with some definition of math crypto and perhaps a list of
things which are defined to be math crypto.
--
Bill Unruh
un...@physics.ubc.ca
Guy Berliner
I don't want to dismiss the difficulties we face. But in my view,
we are faced with two stark alternatives. We can adopt a strategy
of incremental surrender to an FBI already emboldened by its
success on Digital Telephony, an FBI that has yet to cite the
first case of use of PGP for criminal purposes. A partial
surrender now--accepting, say, a requirement for key escrow
only over certain networks, or limited to voice applications--
will inevitably condition us to accept ever more concessions
in the future, when the FBI finally FINDS a handful of cases
to wave the bloody shirt with. The one thing we can be certain
of is that any compromise now will not placate the police statists.
It will only embolden them to demand more when they feel the time
is at hand. Or, we can take a principled stand now, and frame the
debate as a civil liberties and, first and foremost, a speech issue.
If we succeed in framing the debate THIS way, I maintain, WE will win.
Provided we succeed in this, the weight of all history and precedent is
behind us. Every principle of constitutional law militates against
prior restraint of speech. Naturally, since we are taking the offensive,
we don't want this to make it to the courts. We will kill it in its
cradle before it has even a chance to make it there. But even if we
don't succeed in killing it in its cradle, if we frame the debate the
right way now, we can still win in the courts. That is my brief to you.
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLslSqIsZvoZ68B9BAQHADgQAlmLR0YeR9FL5G4jyha5/ItH21bsSKhKK
enzbcetJL83K74gaXVy8D8+v7ov9x9+CrthPV00yTTLN1hanntPRKDaMYaTt+72v
wgKCTnLj9Vxf+zrtRziuMw7OaxyUEhlUofN8/Jii2UXVu9VDpgwt1tlWN+vUKxHh
OWMHGpcZZ+s=
=8IOk
William Unruh
>People use PGP today because it does what they want and is felt to be
>"enough". Outlaw PGP (or math based crypto) and people will simply find
>"something else" - we are very good at that.
Yes, that is true if by people you mean "the best of all of the people".
If by people you mean the average person, no you are not very good at that.
The point is that we are trying to discover what the best arguments are for
Mandatory Key Escrow, and what the technical implications are for implimenting
MKE. The reason is in order to find the best counter arguments.
Remember that the point of the MKE propronents is not to outlaw all secrecy (I agree that that will never
get through congress.) The question is whether or not one can frame a law which is
sufficiently restricted that it does not involve outlawing all secrecy, but sufficiently broad
that it will allow the FBI to maintain its current ability to wiretap conversations
with the current level of having to put up with the hiding of the information.
If the new law can be argued to increase the restrictions against privacy and secrecy,
I think we have a strong chance of defeating it. If the new law is such that
it can be argued simply to maintain the current (say pre 1990) level of secrecy and privacy
(given the ability to wiretap etc) then our arguments become more difficult.
What one would like to find is that if the law is to be effective in maintaining
the current level of ability to intercept then the law has to be so stiff that it
seriously infringes on current levels of privacy secrecy and liberty.
Having the law such that communicators must invent their own crypto system in order
to escape (court ordered) detection is no counter argument, because most people
are incapable of inventing their own crypto system ( doing so has been possible
at least since Caesar and has been very little impediment to the use of eavesdropping).
--
Bill Unruh
un...@physics.ubc.ca
T. Erik Browne
>challenging this thinking on the grounds that what is at issue
>is an exercise of political speech.
Using this free speech argument will get nowhere. Breaking a law to protest
the existence of the law is called Civil Disobedience. Unfortunately it is
still breaking the law, and you can be arrested and put in jail for it. At
the same time, rhetoric against the law is still a powerful tool, and it is
protected by the 1st Amendment. Civil disobedience is a protest, it is
great for publicity, but it is not protected speech.
> Did I hear
>someone say the words "flag burning"? Sheesh, if flag burning laws
>could be struck down on political speech grounds, why the hell not
>crypto bans too?! Afterall, flag burning in itself could very
>reasonably be argued not to be a speech act at all--indeed, it
>could well pose a clear and present danger to public safety.
Burning a flag is an overt act of political speech. No amount of rhetoric
can compare to the message sent by a burning flag. That is why it is
protected speech. Of course, if you set fire to a flag on the steps of City
Hall, you could probably still be arrested for setting a fire on public
property (a nuisance misdemeanor, basically).
Guy, you have an amazing ability to come up with bad arguments for a good
cause. Our best avenues are either the impracticality of the law, or even
better in my mind, getting behind businesses that either produce or use
strong crypto in their communications. See the product announcement under
the horribly mis-named thread about IDEA being broken. Hughes, the
aerospace giant, has/will have a network security product called Netlock.
People in business are finally realizing that they need security for their
data, and they will have to turn to strong crypto. Congress will listen to
them, hopefully, and Mandatory Key Escrow will have a tough time.
Personally, I don't even think a Federal Encryption Standard has much of a
chance.
Padgett 0sirius
>No not ANY. Just specific types of impediments, namely mathematical
>crypto.
This would not be sufficient. Consider a book code - it is non-mathematical
but can be easily implimented by computer. Consider a one-time-pad or a
CD-ROM of "random" noise. These are not mathematical unless you consider
a bytewise XOR to be mathematical.
Now consider the following (have been discussing the concept for subscription
magazine distribution:
1) Create a compression algorithm that consists of a dictionary and pointers.
2) Create a very large dictionary of patterns (a CD-ROM full would be about
right).
3) Distribute the CD-ROM to subscribers
3) Create the E-zine
4) Compress the E-zine using the dictionary on the CD-ROM
5) Broadcast/multicast/E-mail the pointers to subscribers
6) Subscribers put CD-ROM and pointers togeter to view/hear/multi-etc.
the E-Zine.
7) New 'Zine or new year ? Re-order the dictionary.
Is this crypto ? Will such two-part messages with each part sent by
differing means be illegal ? How would anyone know ?
IMHO the concern is over something (traditional math based crypto) that is
quickly becoming obsolete. Consider a key longer than the message. Again all
you need is an XOR. Consider that we are approaching 500 channels of
satellite TV and if you and I say that "today our key will be the first 10
Mb of signal from HBO(3) following the first black line after 10:00:07.12
am EST or a book code based on the following NNTP messages or ... I have
coined the term "unwitting key provider" for such things. Point is there are
a *lot* of UKP sources if you look.
People use PGP today because it does what they want and is felt to be
"enough". Outlaw PGP (or math based crypto) and people will simply find
"something else" - we are very good at that.
A. Padgett Peterson, P.E.
Guy Berliner
: In article <berlinerC...@netcom.com>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Let me explain something to you, Erik. Free speech covers any
communication you engage in assiduously, if you are willing
to make a stink about it when someone tries to deny your
right to do it. Even when the government finds it potentially
inconvenient for them. *Especially* when the government finds it
potentially inconvenient for them. Particularly if you are not harming
anyone by doing so. Particularly if you are not interrupting the flow
of traffic by doing so. Particularly if you are not creating harmful
interference by doing so. Particularly if you are not impeding anyone's
right to do anything else on God's Green Earth by doing so. Any
communication that falls within these rubrics can very reasonably
be deemed free speech, protected by the 1st Amendment. The rulings
against prior restraint of speech are the strongest and most
consistent of any restrictions courts have placed on government's
powers. Use of nonescrowed crypto is liable to be held a form of
political speech in direct proportion to the degree to which there
is a significant minority engaging in it and making a stink about
being persecuted for doing so. It is liable to be held a form of
political speech in inverse proportion to the success of you and
others to persuade us all that there are no civil liberties issues
including speech issues at stake, and that therefore let's not make
a stink, but let's look real cool and reasonable and businesslike
and not frighten the horses. It is liable to be held a form of
political speech in inverse proportion to the extent that you
succeed in convincing everyone, "Let's just try to get business
leaders on our side, no need to bother raising public awareness or
getting people to exercise rights which they don't have anyway, or
have only at the whim of authority." In short, were you to succeed
in your counsels, they would be self-fulfilling prophecy. There is
only excessive novelty in insisting that crypto is political speech
if *you insist* that it is unacceptably novel, and have success
convincing others that it is so novel.
If there is any excessive novelty at issue here, it is the excessive
novelty of the government claiming a right to force you to use only
escrowed encryption. It is the excessive novelty of claiming this
NOT because they have a right to listen in on your communications,
since they don't even have that until after they've gotten a court
order. The right claimed by government is the right to be sure that
JUST IN CASE they ever get a court order to listen in, that the
communications will be comprehensible. Now THAT is a novel claim.
No one even disputes the authority of government to listen in on
communications under court order. Here we have a government proposing
to restrict what you can say and how you can say it EVEN BEFORE they've
gotten the court order, for the sake of the hypothetical possibility
that someday they might succeed in getting a court order against you
and your encryption might make life more inconvenient for them in that
case.
And *you* tell *me* that there are no civil liberties problems with such
prior restraint! If anything, the speech problem is a GREATER one than
even the privacy problem.
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLsqRbosZvoZ68B9BAQFA8gP9Gl66kC6xxwF/avjCek6fjbDiKJnjKUWD
9OF4j+71rSs/SqTZk7FY/S59u0If2uK1LlU7VPel2tZKJgAVYhbgvuFTFOaO01K3
FOXHyAdZ3UqcI764ohHzvWfvmeJGCDi9oxGBZ+FG5bB7zw3eCtHMtEwu+nVfhMxU
TdqrjyrATS0=
=hM2b
William Unruh
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>I think you're a hopeless fantasist if you believe that big business
^^^^ Is this me?
>can't be corralled into line by political "tough-on-crime" rhetoric
>into accepting anything the government wants if it isn't obviously
They regard their bottom line much more than they do any gov't.
They do NOT want breakable crypto used by themselves, and they trust
the gov't less than you do (more experience maybe).
>breakable. The last thing they want to do is appear to be threatening
>public safety. They'll be more than happy to accept escrowed crypto if
>the Dennings of the world assure them its secure. They won't care
>about government listening in, only their competitors. You are
And what if the gov't is their competitor or enemy. (eg Microsoft,
IBM, etc investigations etc.)
>embracing a hopeless and already lost cause if you think this is
>the way to defeat MKE, and that no resort should be made to grassroots
When did I ever say this that no grassoots action should be taken? The
trouble is there are no grass roots. Teh field is far too recently
planted for more tahn a few lonely blades of grass to poking up. So
you really think that the 500 readers of alt.security.pgp are going to
have some huge impact on the govt? Do you see EFF as having the power
of the NRA? If so, I would respectfully submit that someone other than
I is a fantasist. If we don't use all the allies we can (which on this
issue includes big business) then I believe this to be a lost cause,
which would be a shame.
>action. I don't object to tailoring the message to the audience. The
>only thing I'm certain of is that we have to use every weapon at our
Agreed. But we also have to make sure that the weapons we use are
effective.
>disposal, and relying on the Constitution, the highest law of the
Every one of those congressmen would also claim to be relying on the
Constitution. And they know that every charlatan hauls in the
constitution as the main plank of his argument. In this battle, the
Constitution is not a very secure platform- it is too crowded with all
kinds of folks, to make a good battle station.
>land, and large scale popular protest, has achieved a lot more histo-
Do you think Congress would notice us if we all gathered on the lawns
of Capitol Hill? Would they be able to find us? Or do you really think
there is this huge multitude willing to march on Washington? ("I have
a dream, that someday all will be able to use PGP. ...")
>rically for the cause of civil liberties than relying solely on
>machinations in smoke filled rooms. If you don't even believe this
>*is* a civil liberties issue, then why not just give up? Why are you
>even bothering to fight this thing if you are not fighting for rights
>that the government seeks to abridge? Why not just let the government
>impose any damned restriction on crypto it pleases, so long as it's not
>harmful to business? I really don't understand the reasoning of someone
>who can say they earnestly want to preserve the ability of individuals
>to use nonescrowed crypto but then insist there are no civil liberties
>issues involved. Why not just give in right now if you are not bothered
>by civil liberties problems here? What's wrong? You don't trust the
>renowned experts who have looked at Clipper and found no backdoors? Why
>don't we just throw anyone who uses anything but Clipper in prison, once
>we've corrected minor flaws in Clipper like Blaze's attack?
Ah yes, the battle cry resounds throughout history- He that is not for
me, that does not think exactly as I do, is against me. Let's all make
sure that we all shoot each other first, then we won;t have to worry
about the main battle- we will be dead before it is ever fought.
I personally don't like the restrictions on crypto precisely because
of the civil liberties issues. But if I am going to get involved in a
fight, I want to know what the opposition is, what the problems are,
before I get on the battle field and am surprised. You seem to feel
that this is like some medieval exorcism, that if only we parrot the
correct phrases from the constitution, or other holy book, the demons
will meekly go away. They won't. They too think that they have right
and truth and justice on their side. they also have concerns that they
want to see addressed. Without addressing them, we will loose. In the
ideal situation, both sides will come out of the battle thinking that
they have won. If not, then we have lost already- they have far far
greater forces arrayed on their side than we do or ever will. We need
to use every advantage that we have.
--
Bill Unruh
un...@physics.ubc.ca
T. Erik Browne
Guy Berliner <berl...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Let me explain something to you, Erik.
Okee-dokie.
> Free speech covers any
>communication you engage in assiduously, if you are willing
>to make a stink about it when someone tries to deny your
>right to do it. Even when the government finds it potentially
>inconvenient for them. *Especially* when the government finds it
>potentially inconvenient for them. Particularly if you are not harming
>anyone by doing so. Particularly if you are not interrupting the flow
>of traffic by doing so. Particularly if you are not creating harmful
>interference by doing so. Particularly if you are not impeding anyone's
>right to do anything else on God's Green Earth by doing so. Any
>communication that falls within these rubrics can very reasonably
>be deemed free speech, protected by the 1st Amendment. The rulings
>against prior restraint of speech are the strongest and most
>consistent of any restrictions courts have placed on government's
>powers.
All this is true.
> Use of nonescrowed crypto is liable to be held a form of
>political speech in direct proportion to the degree to which there
>is a significant minority engaging in it and making a stink about
>being persecuted for doing so.
Here is where you get off track. MKE would not restrict any speech. Under
it, we would still be able to say whatever we want to and express any opinions
we have. It is only a restriction on a tool we want to use, and not on what
we can say.
> It is liable to be held a form of
>political speech in inverse proportion to the success of you and
>others to persuade us all that there are no civil liberties issues
>including speech issues at stake,
When did I ever say that there are no civil liberties involved? Freedom of
speech is two or three words in one Amendment. There are other liberties
involved, notably privacy. Of course there is difficulty there, since the
right to privacy isn't as nailed down as speech.
> There is
>only excessive novelty in insisting that crypto is political speech
>if *you insist* that it is unacceptably novel, and have success
>convincing others that it is so novel.
No, though I am flattered that you think I have this power. There is
probably quite a bit of case law out there (I don't know where, I'm not a
lawyer, just an informed citizen) defining when an action is a form of
protected speech and when it's just breaking the law. From what I know, I
don't see how the Supreme Court could find MKE a limit on our speech.
In response to another poster pointing out that flag burners were breaking
the law before the laws were actually overturned, I have this to say.
Burning a flag was inherently a form of political speech before the laws
existed. Using crypto now isn't a political message, though. Most of us
use it because we want to protect our privacy. It's simply a tool we use to
further an end, not an overt message of our political beliefs. Using
illegal crypto after MKE would only be civil disobedience, and not the
practice of a banned form of speech.
>If there is any excessive novelty at issue here, it is the excessive
>novelty of the government claiming a right to force you to use only
>escrowed encryption. It is the excessive novelty of claiming this
>NOT because they have a right to listen in on your communications,
>since they don't even have that until after they've gotten a court
>order. The right claimed by government is the right to be sure that
>JUST IN CASE they ever get a court order to listen in, that the
>communications will be comprehensible. Now THAT is a novel claim.
Wow, something we agree on. Hey, wait a minute. This is the original issue
that we're supposedly arguing about. Funny, that.
Guy Berliner
Let me revise my statements in an earlier post. Here are the two
stark alternatives we face. We can either leave the insiders like
EFF to fight this battle over MKE in obscurity, bereft of most
popular support and media attention, or we can exert some collective
efforts to shine the spotlight on what is going on. That means
explaining these issues to the general public. It means getting
people angry that the government is on the verge of taking away rights
from them they may not have even known they had. And it means getting
more people to exercise those rights by actively using strong encryption
to make it even harder for the would-be crypto suppressors to get
their way.
I used to think EFF might have somehow "sold out" and made a drastic
mistake on Digital Telephony. But now I'm beginning to suspect they
were right. I find it highly ironic that some of the same people who
were most sharply critical of EFF for "cutting a deal" are the ones
who now express the most defeatist attitudes towards any kind of
grassroots organizing, "cryptevangelism," and in short making a civil
liberties issue of this. With this kind of defeatism in our midst, is
it any wonder that EFF's only resort was to "cut a deal," the best
deal it knew how? It didn't get any of the support it needed on the
homefront to demand anything better. This has got to change. We have
an opportunity now to make a difference in the future over MKE. FBI
officials have stated it'll probably be a few years yet before they
begin their "push to the sea" to ban strong crypto. We have a window
during this time to grow the grassroots opposition which, as Bill Unruh
has pointed out, is presently only a few "scattered blades." The only
way we will arm the lobbyists with the muscle they need is if we can
expose this thing to at least as much scrutiny as Clipper has
gotten. Why do you think the Clipper enthusiasts have had so much
trouble to begin with? Much of it stems from the high level of
negative media attention Clipper has received. And the most natural
enemies of MKE in the world will be people who have been turned on
to using strong crypto in the first place. We need to create more
of those people, and what better way of doing it than saying, "Your
rights are at stake! Exercise them while you've still got 'em, before
the elitist politicians in Washington take them away!"
There had better be the will out there somewhere to take up something
like the "cryptevangelical crusade" I have described elsewhere. Other-
wise, don't say I didn't tell you so a few years from now when you
defeatists are sitting around here posting complaints about EFF's
latest "sellout" to the bad guys.
Guy Berliner
PS: I have been written by people who protest, "But I *am* doing
something! I'm responsible for bringing technical improvements
that will make crypto easier to use." I agree. Plenty of people are
doing things like this that are extremely helpful. I just hope they
don't ignore the fact that there is also a need for more people to
carry on the more direct "evangelical" work too. Any one person can't
do everything, but this particular thing is desperately in need of more
attention. There's a lot of real smart folks out there doing the
technical stuff. Writing code. Running remailers. But it seems like
there are damn few doing the grubbier stuff like starting channels
on IRC to give advice to beginning users of PGP (one of the examples
of "cryptevangelical" field work I mentioned in my agenda in the
thread on "Cryptevangelism").
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLssASosZvoZ68B9BAQF6YgQAoQCc/F3Y70FBTOopj2ElWiafAZg/IjY9
dvPoFdCCVLXHbO4pNNmC4aQbuTQ9Jx0qjyPc1V5Jm/hzMHE0eyBfQ17tSS7jXeUM
AqaUC0EUe1ZYTc93ptyQIBBEHQHdTaCTWkgvrdl6anJvSDT9ItUNf1MpOGE6oHmk
uoa2kwUu+x0=
=m7ld
Guy Berliner
: Guy Berliner <berl...@netcom.com> wrote:
: > Use of nonescrowed crypto is liable to be held a form of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
You are taking a very narrow view of what political speech can
mean, much narrower than the courts traditionally have. It suffices
for enough people to say, "I'm making a political statement by
sending messages using strong encryption. I'm asserting my rights
to privacy, and to communicate in a manner as I choose, inspite of
(or rather because of) the fact that some quarters in law enforcement
find my doing so distasteful or potentially threatening to their
power." The ciphertext then carries the weight of political speech
ITSELF. It is quite distinct from "civil disobedience" of the kind I
suspect you have in mind. People can claim that many acts are exercises
of political speech. If a law against those acts has a convincing basis,
the acts are still illegal. If not, the law is impermissible as a form of
prior restraint. Blocking traffic with a sign reading "Free Leonard
Peltier!" could be considered a speech act. But there are obvious reasons
having to do with public order and the imposition on free movement of
others for not permitting it. In this case, the reasons for banning strong
crypto are about as shaky as restrictions on political speech can get.
Hence the very reasonable hope for arguing that such a ban is
unconstitutional.
Also, I suspect there is an unspoken assumption underlying your view.
You probably believe, understandably, that because the authorities
are not saying, "You can't complain about a crypto ban," that therefore
the "speech" argument must fail. You probably believe that because the
"content" of the speech is not banned, but only the particular manner
used to express the sentiment, that the ban would necessarily escape
strict judicial scrutiny. This is not correct. In fact, the courts have
ruled on a number of occasions that THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT. The mere fact
that other avenues exist for expressing one's views, and that a law does
not attempt to suppress expression of the view *itself*, but only a
particular form of expression of that view, does not relieve the
state of the burden to show that there is a compelling reason for
adopting the restriction, and that the restriction is not burdensome.
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLssRAYsZvoZ68B9BAQG7vwQAqlX72eZnUZ2tsIhggOdR32hZnl7M7j1Z
p9B/GoJrpTJ9P1fXmVKPojiqIqLsJ66e6mA8pC/jgULPplruMcnGlHJ9Yz1Jp8Kh
wRyG3PJWkbDSr4amcg3kLZ11v6ECOW48AYzA1ZJ3P6Bjwm44ZbFflLpYwr6cIAlx
y3CwLjrPQGk=
=FJ8R
Richard Lucock
One of the problems with key escrow that I haven't seen mentioned
so far is the fact that the US government has no authority over
people outside of the US or over messages coming in from outside.
So someone inside the US can send messages to someone in the UK, for
instance, using the recipient's public key and the government would
have no way of accessing the information (the sender having no more
information about the secret key than the spooks). The message could
also be sent to a newsgroup instead of directly to the individual
concerned (bad netiquette of course), go via an anonymous remailer and
end up back inside the US, etc.
Similarly, there is nothing to prevent me, in the UK, from sending PGP
encrypted messages to someone in the US using a key that they don't
know about and thus dropping them in the shit with the authorities -
who presumably wouldn't believe that the recipient couldn't decrypt it
(of course, they might believe such a story - in which case this would
become a safe way of circumventing key escrow).
Richard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQB1AgUBLsszFsjbe54LoMbHAQGi8QL+ODhyb1bx3VItGoFkY+AYEmuM4ew+K+OT
W9aU3Rh47CNdjvve1KardKtVqCDj165bWCVX3qKthZiXPl9T4GlYMo+Pt9PfzH3v
/qYN89xFrbGzPvxI/Oo30eMpX4KvCexU
=74Is
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
One Card to rule them all, One Card to find them,
One Card to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Whitehall, where the Shadows lie.
--------------
PGP Public Key available on request
--------------
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
William Unruh
*>Let me revise my statements in an earlier post. Here are the two
*>stark alternatives we face. We can either leave the insiders like
*>EFF to fight this battle over MKE in obscurity, bereft of most
*>popular support and media attention, or we can exert some collective
*>efforts to shine the spotlight on what is going on. That means
*>explaining these issues to the general public. It means getting
*>people angry that the government is on the verge of taking away rights
*>from them they may not have even known they had. And it means getting
I simply do not think that we are going to get many people angry. This
isn't the civil rights movement of the 50s, nor can it be made into one.
Our best chance is to persuade Congressmen etc by the force of our
argument, not by the volume or passion of our rhetoric.
*>more people to exercise those rights by actively using strong encryption
*>to make it even harder for the would-be crypto suppressors to get
*>their way.
*>I used to think EFF might have somehow "sold out" and made a drastic
*>mistake on Digital Telephony. But now I'm beginning to suspect they
*>were right. I find it highly ironic that some of the same people who
*>were most sharply critical of EFF for "cutting a deal" are the ones
*>who now express the most defeatist attitudes towards any kind of
*>grassroots organizing, "cryptevangelism," and in short making a civil
Huh? I have never said anything about Digital Telephony. And is it
defeatism to try to make sure that our arguments are sound, and that
they will not be shot down in the first skirmish?
*>liberties issue of this. With this kind of defeatism in our midst, is
*>it any wonder that EFF's only resort was to "cut a deal," the best
*>deal it knew how? It didn't get any of the support it needed on the
*>homefront to demand anything better. This has got to change. We have
*>an opportunity now to make a difference in the future over MKE. FBI
*>officials have stated it'll probably be a few years yet before they
*>begin their "push to the sea" to ban strong crypto. We have a window
*>during this time to grow the grassroots opposition which, as Bill Unruh
*>has pointed out, is presently only a few "scattered blades." The only
*>way we will arm the lobbyists with the muscle they need is if we can
*>expose this thing to at least as much scrutiny as Clipper has
*>gotten. Why do you think the Clipper enthusiasts have had so much
Clipper was accomplished fact until a technical workier- Blaze- got
involved. One such demonstration of what seems incompetence on the other
side is worth many many gallons or rhetoric. The rhetoric has its place,
but it is not going to win the war.
*>trouble to begin with? Much of it stems from the high level of
*>negative media attention Clipper has received. And the most natural
*>enemies of MKE in the world will be people who have been turned on
*>to using strong crypto in the first place. We need to create more
Many will say "I love strong crypto. The gov't assures me ( and others
assure me in the case of software MKE) that this escrowed crypto is
strong. What's the issue?"
*>of those people, and what better way of doing it than saying, "Your
*>rights are at stake! Exercise them while you've still got 'em, before
*>the elitist politicians in Washington take them away!"
And they will say " We are not taking them away- we are giving them to
you- we are mandating that strong crypto will be available on the
internet, on telephones etc. All we require is that in the unlikely
event that you are a criminal, we, under court orders, have the right to
be able to read or listen to what you understand. Since you are not a
criminal, nor are you ever going to be, why do you worry about this
completely transparent, unobtrusive, requirement? After all you do want
the terrorists, pedophiles, murderers, mafia, etc to get caught and put
behind bars don't you?" Remember that the public has been perfectly
willing to accept wiretapping now. It is simply not an issue unless
misused to listen in to politicians, or to political groups (and even
then is a minor issue with the public.)
So the best argument I have heard so far is that MKE is something that
the "bad" guys " can far to easily subvert and get around. And that MKE
is a prior restriction on the general populous- it criminalises an in
general innocent acrivity, without delivering the benefits claimed. It
will also get in the way of commerce, and the real fears that i the
commercial sector, the safeguards on MKE will in general be
insufficient. Furhtermore, in international trade and communications,
there is no way that MKE can be forced on foreign recipients, an they
will be leary of any system where a foreign gov't could read their
private messages.
*>There had better be the will out there somewhere to take up something
*>like the "cryptevangelical crusade" I have described elsewhere. Other-
*>wise, don't say I didn't tell you so a few years from now when you
*>defeatists are sitting around here posting complaints about EFF's
*>latest "sellout" to the bad guys.
*>technical stuff. Writing code. Running remailers. But it seems like
*>there are damn few doing the grubbier stuff like starting channels
*>on IRC to give advice to beginning users of PGP (one of the examples
*>of "cryptevangelical" field work I mentioned in my agenda in the
*>thread on "Cryptevangelism").
--
Bill Unruh
un...@physics.ubc.ca
William Unruh
>encryption would be. Laws in this country almost never get overturned
>EXCEPT when someone is arrested for disobeying them [or sued, or enjoined,
>or whatever]
And usually when someone is arrested and tried, he is punished rather
than that the law is overturned. You and Guy seem to feel that obviously
MKE would be overturned. I doubt it. The flag burning laws were
introduced only after protesters had used flag burning as a political
protest- there was no other reason for the flag burning. The use of
crypto can hardly be said to be in the same league. It is precisely
because crypto has another purpose (hiding communications) that it is
used. Thus one has to argue that it is unconstitutional for the govt to
limit this particular form of hiding under these particular
circumstances. Since hiding is already limited (you cannot for example
hide or destroy evidence after you have been charged as I understand it,
and I am sure there are other instances of hiding being disallowed) it
is hard to argue that the constitution allows all forms of hiding at all
times.
--
Bill Unruh
un...@physics.ubc.ca
Ron Cole
>From: k...@chinook.halcyon.com (Ken Pizzini)
>Subject: Re: Mandatory Key Escrow: Goodnight!
>Date: 15 Nov 1994 20:19:59 GMT
Infact the FCC has added additional cost to broadcasters. There are "Spectrum
Use Fees" these are based on the location and power of the station. and soon
to come a Tax of gross operating revenuses, IE Sales Tax. This is in addition
to the traditional Licensing fees. Common carriers are contruled by state
Public Utilities Commissions. The issue tarrifs to allow Common Carriers to
offer services to the residents of a given area. Broadcaster need to
permission from the State to setup shop, only the FCC license and ordinary
business licenses and permits. Most states charge sales taxes on the
advertments, though Texas does not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Cole Internet:rdc...@crl.com ICBM:29 31.03 N
N5HYH CIS:70325,102 98 25.55 W
CE KZEP/KHBL AX25:N5HYH
William Unruh
>In article <3adjg9$g...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> un...@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
>>The point is that we are trying to discover what the best arguments are for
>>Mandatory Key Escrow, and what the technical implications are for implimenting
>>MKE. The reason is in order to find the best counter arguments.
>No, I do not intend to help proponents of such a law by suggesting ways it
>might be framed (at least not for free 8*).
Yes, that will work if we assume that the other side is incompetent and
a bunch of dunderheads (sometimes hard not to hold that feeling).
However, I suspect that they won;t be on this one. Furhtermore, we are
the ones wit h the uphill battle, we are the ones wno suffer if we are
blindsided by having our agruments shown to be irrelevant tot he law as
it will actually be written. Goliath may not need to know all about
David- he can meake many mistakes and still win. its David that has to
know about Goliath. Uunfortunately our finding and using a devastating
sling by surprise may be less probable than it was in the original).
>Might I suggest that we consider a more traditional model for "precedence",
>mail in an envelope. AFAIK, law enforcement is at liberty to examine an
>envelope to determine the information on the outside (sender, receiver,
>weight, size, etc without a court order.
>With a court order the envelope may be opened, the contents examined, the
>envelope resealed and allowed to continue. *It has never* been a requirement
>that law enforcement be able to understand the contents and I would expect a
>court to hold that any such requirement would place an undue burden on the
>sender since he/she/it/other would have no ability to determine what is
>understandable and what is not.
I'd say that's a reasonable analogy, and a reasonable argument.
>To hold otherwise would be to say that 3l3t3 d00ds is illegalspeak since
>it take knowlege to understand. To a local inhabitant, "South OBT"
>has a very specific meaning just as my sometime tagline "Who cares about the
>lawyers, I own a Judge." or even "Piled Higher and Deeper" does. It is not
>my responsibility to provide an explanation for everyone and never has been
>though if I wish to have an effect, it is in my best interest to do so.
No, it would be incumbent on the gov't to prove that what you used was
illegal crypto. However the purpose of the law may not be to prevent
anyone from using non-escrowed creypto, but to stop anyone from
supplying it. The ability of the public to develope crypto on their own
is very very limited. If there is no PGP, viacrypt, easily available,
they also will not get used by the general public.
>In simplest terms, ASCII is a "code" just as EBCDIC or BAUDOT is so just as
>in the joke in which a man offers a lady $10, "we've already determined
>that, what we are discussing now is the price." and that is indeterminable.
Unfortunately the law is very well versed in making distinctions on the
basis of both quality and quantity. Getting arrested for offering your
congressman one cent would be hard, and would be laughed out of court.
But try a million and you would be in trouble.
--
Bill Unruh
un...@physics.ubc.ca
Mike McNally
>...it is hard to argue that the constitution allows all forms of hiding at all
>times.
Since to my knowledge the Constitution in no way imposes restrictions on what
a citizen may do with information in his/her posession (except perhaps those
citizens under accusation of a crime), I'd say it's pretty clear that the
Constitution "allows" all forms of hiding.
Similarly, the Constitution "allows" me to dress up like a duck.
--
| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m...@tivoli.com> |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO. ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX: |
| (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |
William Unruh
>un...@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
>>...it is hard to argue that the constitution allows all forms of hiding at all
>>times.
>Since to my knowledge the Constitution in no way imposes restrictions on what
>a citizen may do with information in his/her posession (except perhaps those
>citizens under accusation of a crime), I'd say it's pretty clear that the
>Constitution "allows" all forms of hiding.
The Constitution imposes restrictions on what thegov't is allowed to do.
Since it imposes no restrictions on "hiding", that allows the gov't to
make laws on hiding. After all the constitution also does not metion
murder, but you cannot therefor argue that therefor no laws against
murder can be passed by the legislatures.
--
Bill Unruh
un...@physics.ubc.ca
Alf the Poet
>Might I suggest that we consider a more traditional model for
>"precedence", mail in an envelope. AFAIK, law enforcement is at
>liberty to examine an envelope to determine the information on
>the outside (sender, receiver, weight, size, etc without a court
>order.
>
>With a court order the envelope may be opened, the contents
>examined, the envelope resealed and allowed to continue. *It has
>never* been a requirement that law enforcement be able to understand
>the contents and I would expect a court to hold that any such
>requirement would place an undue burden on the sender since
>he/she/it/other would have no ability to determine what is
>understandable and what is not.
>
>since it take knowlege to understand. To a local inhabitant, "South
>OBT" has a very specific meaning just as my sometime tagline "Who
>cares about the lawyers, I own a Judge." or even "Piled Higher
>and Deeper" does. It is not my responsibility to provide an
>explanation for everyone and never has been though if I wish to
>have an effect, it is in my best interest to do so.
I'm not a lawyer (I believe more in common sense), but this is the
best argument I've heard so far in this debate. It would be easy
to implement in software - my message is encrypted using an unescrowed
key (the "letter"), then that is encrypted using an escrowed key
(the "envelope").
Works for me.
Alf
P.S. I'd have signed this, but my system is a bit mucked up right
now & I can't get to my key...
Jason and Heather
> m...@tivoli.com (Mike McNally) writes:
> >un...@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
> >>...it is hard to argue that the constitution allows all forms of
> >>hiding at all times.
> >Since to my knowledge the Constitution in no way imposes
> >restrictions on what a citizen may do with information in his/her
> >posession (except perhaps those citizens under accusation of a
> >crime), I'd say it's pretty clear that the Constitution "allows"
> >all forms of hiding.
> The Constitution imposes restrictions on what thegov't is allowed
> to do. Since it imposes no restrictions on "hiding", that allows
> the gov't to make laws on hiding.
actually, the Constitution of the United States specifically states
that all powers not explicitely given to the federal government
are reserved for the states and the people. thus, the feds have
no LEGITIMATE authority to regulate encryption. (although you could
make a case that individual states might...)
> After all the constitution also does not metion murder, but you
> cannot therefor argue that therefor no laws against murder can be
> passed by the legislatures.
not by the federal legislature. if you'll look closely, you'll see
that laws against murder are STATE laws.
note that the above is just silly idealism. in fact, the federal
government can (and does) do whatever it damn well pleases. the
Constitution makes a fine tourist attraction, but the tourists
are about the only people who pay attention to it these days.
jason
--
There is nothing nobler or more admirable than when two people who see
eye to eye keep house as man and wife, confounding their enemies and
delighting their friends, as they themselves know better than anyone.
HOMER, The Odyssey
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` stei...@indirect.com `,`,`,`
William J. Evans
>>> Warning: nothing above this line is part of the message. <<<
m...@tivoli.com (Mike McNally) wrote:
:Similarly, the Constitution "allows" me to dress up like a duck.
... but not in a crowded theater.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLtGczO7FqQNEGv6lAQEClQP9GmXby1hASkNOzSj+/nqoUqVqphRTU/Sz
iZs0WRXNogUKyeMaDxaIyNondOnwNba0NeW51OIJ1b486WfgXJmoXibFO4y45A5/
ufc4ZWzou5SS35KVCb47k3XX/ssmYdn4uEjLj2MOGD3WIADgKbv0ZGkMc6x4A3bQ
eiAt1gcskBY=
=BrkI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Bill Evans P.O. Box 4829 Irvine, CA 92716 (714)551-2766 _ /| ACK!
Email-To: w...@acm.org -- PGP encrypted mail preferred. -- \`o_O' /
Finger w...@netcom.com for public key. Key #: 441AFEA5 =( )=
PGPprint: FB D0 1C 1D EF DC 26 BA B3 9E 84 0B 40 D6 59 9C U
Steve Brinich
> After all the constitution also does not metion murder, but you cannot
>therefor argue that therefor no laws against murder can be passed by the
>legislatures.
Yes, but if the Supreme Court were doing its job, the fact that the
Constitution does not mention murder would prohibit _federal_ laws on the
subject, leaving the matter to the states as per the Tenth Amendment.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> | If the government wants us
GEnie: S.BRINICH CI$: 74157,2226 | to respect the law
PGPrint 89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C65 | it should set a better example
William Unruh
> Yes, but if the Supreme Court were doing its job, the fact that the
>Constitution does not mention murder would prohibit _federal_ laws on the
>subject, leaving the matter to the states as per the Tenth Amendment.
(Isn't it state law now? I know the death penalty is state law.)
I'm not sure I like the thought of state laws on crypto.-- Florida bans
all crypto, California wants MKE and nothing stronger than CEASAR,
Nevada allows anything,.... Anyway I think this one is federal because
of Interstate commerce.
--
Bill Unruh
un...@physics.ubc.ca
Larry Cipriani
>After all the constitution also does not mention murder, but you cannot
>therefore argue that therefor no laws against murder can be passed by
>the legislatures.
There is no federal law against murder [or prostitution for that
matter], per se, and the federal government indeed has no such
authority. However, there are federal laws against committing murder
in a context the federal government has jurisdiction over, e.g.,
murder of a USDA chicken inspector, murder committed on a drilling
platform in US waters, or murder committed with a firearm which moved
in interstate commerce.
--
Larry Cipriani, l.v.ci...@att.com or attmail!lcipriani
Ever feel like you're being watched ? You will ...
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Check out the new Crime Bill recently passed by Congress. It adds
to the list of Federal crimes (a list that has recently grown to
include the special crime of "Murder of Federal Poultry Inspection
Officer") about sixty new crimes previously handled exclusively
by the states. Sandra Day O'Connor warned before the bill was
passed that it will be the single biggest step in US history
towards the federalization of the entire criminal justice system.
It seems like the only way you can prove you're a "tough-on-crime"
congresscritter these days is pass laws that ever further scrap
our two hundred year federalist judicial tradition. Scary.
Guy Berliner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLtY+V4sZvoZ68B9BAQHcYAP9GNm60dq4k0Ju0A+R5yu/2mSGa6gNJp3Z
ucAYBjD10OmmhGipOS2US2HUKBAyhLlptlyl/7hqewLR/WTIWZG1yW9hRbWbHKAq
5Koi84vpv1t2hFtPj8VWAO5KLpZwSyi3NdyEl0Q68SRxvGmxuSK5rkJMcU2TbMJk
nCKgMkbOyvc=
=VPLU
mark lange
>un...@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) wrote:
>
>>After all the constitution also does not mention murder, but you cannot
>>therefore argue that therefor no laws against murder can be passed by
>>the legislatures.
>
>There is no federal law against murder [or prostitution for that
>matter], per se, and the federal government indeed has no such
>authority. However, there are federal laws against committing murder
>in a context the federal government has jurisdiction over, e.g.,
>murder of a USDA chicken inspector, murder committed on a drilling
>platform in US waters, or murder committed with a firearm which moved
>in interstate commerce.
>--
That last one is really scary. Think about it. Right now it is
politically correct to be anti-firearm. But one could extend that
"jurisdiction" to any crime in which a tool or material was used
that moved in interstate commerce. Imagine, a federal crime, passing
a bad check because the check paper was made using wood from a tree
that was transported in interstate commerce. There's no stopping them
now, is there?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions only, my employer has its own opinions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John S. McGowan
> But one could extend that
> "jurisdiction" to any crime in which a tool or material was used
> that moved in interstate commerce.
>
I believe that the justification for federal laws against personal
growing of marijuana is that it affects interstate commerce and that
attacking abortion clinics might cause people in other states to avoid a
targetted clinic... again, affecting interstate commerce (the reason I
suspect that latter is that I had read theat a lawyer, in defending a
client against a federal charge was arguing that it was not an interstate
commerce item).
It is frightening how the power to regulate "interstate commerce" has
been used as a justification for the constitutional authority of the
federal government to intercede in so many things.
--
John S. McGowan | jmcg...@bigcat.missouri.edu [COIN] (preferred)
| j.mcg...@genie.geis.com [GEnie]
| jom...@eis.calstate.edu [CORE]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sy...@sgir.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
IU|Nevada allows anything,.... Anyway I think this one is federal because
IU|of Interstate commerce.
The feds use the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify EVERYTHING. Doesn't
mean it's valid but that's what they always try to use.
Donald D. Henson
Sy...@sgir.com
BBS: 915-587-7888
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLtZtBXzLheQ8LhmlAQHG4wP+KVT+fYJ4YiNrb1YGLYw6RY/rZeeJXKvr
ABkRFn94mMnxeTuR2QpXAIn7MmgnFZdu3usj6JdkyrHQYQteLhnUzl9KTl8uDmMv
JK1hkHmNu9Mvi377b2juvn0ewop19vFLrHVm//UqYr2FipPvShAqCsvpT9NTypAg
Syb0avfji+Y=
=dF1r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ask me about Terra Libra. Live FREE!!
* 1st 2.00b #3409 * Hi, I'm from the government. I'm here to help you.
John S. McGowan
>
> The feds use the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify EVERYTHING. Doesn't
> mean it's valid but that's what they always try to use.
>
By using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce as a legal
justification for federal regulation of anything that has to do with such
commerce, consider... one can sell information by sending data... the
feds have a right to regulate this (and search the data for illegal
material) and therefore the right to ban encryption.
We may not like it, but the power to regulate interstate commerce *will*
(I am afraid) permit them to ban unapproved encryption if they can get
the laws passed.
Jim Grubs, W8GRT
jom...@eis.calstate.edu (John S. McGowan) writes:
> By using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce as a legal
> justification for federal regulation of anything that has to do with such
> commerce, consider... one can sell information by sending data... the
> feds have a right to regulate this (and search the data for illegal
> material) and therefore the right to ban encryption.
By that logic, they can open our mail, too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLtfFht74r4kaz3mVAQGBXwP+McNikTMlKiwGk9iHaLvJ2FvQeLawtku1
BmgxfmUL1BIjqSYRmXEVa3sPqiLg/ffFytw0YuTEsiIjBfbZKFJcXFaODQ4YVHjh
dPqcrKI4NIl9YpD/7gLHhCQHWv+NrekzojwzNVgxSqs1S9QeIFKp8UvlwhlGWOmH
37Q5gPt6Gxc=
=K2kq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
...
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment of men
of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Justice Louis Brandeis
--
jgr...@voxbox.norden1.com (James C. Grubs, W8GRT)
Voxbox Enterprises, 6817 Maplewood Ave., Sylvania, Ohio 43560-1956
Tel.: 419/882-2697
Lucky Green
(Jim Grubs, W8GRT) wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> jom...@eis.calstate.edu (John S. McGowan) writes:
>
> > By using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce as a legal
> > justification for federal regulation of anything that has to do with such
> > commerce, consider... one can sell information by sending data... the
> > feds have a right to regulate this (and search the data for illegal
> > material) and therefore the right to ban encryption.
>
> By that logic, they can open our mail, too.
Of course they can. They have been for a long time. What did you think?
-- Lucky Green <sham...@netcom.com>
PGP encrypted mail preferred.
Dan Day
>
>It is frightening how the power to regulate "interstate commerce" has
>been used as a justification for the constitutional authority of the
>federal government to intercede in so many things.
The good news is a few justices still seem to have their heads on
straight:
Item from AP: It seems that in urging the Supreme Court
to reinstate a federal-level ban on firearms within 1000 feet of
schools (the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act), the Clinton
administration argues that the national economy is adversely
affected by gun-related violence at schools. Therefor, the
reasoning continues, Congress was authorized to institute the
ban under (you guessed it) the Interstate Commerce clause of the
Constitution. Said Solicitor General Drew S Day III, "This is not
about just regulating guns. Congress is concerned with this impact
on the national economy."
Asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Is there any violent crime
that doesn't affect interstate commerce under your rationale?"
Ginsburg later asked Days to cite an example of a law which Congress
would NOT have the authority to enact under the Interstate Commerce
Clause. Interjected Justice Scalia, "Don't give away anything here.
They might want to do it."
--
"Don't tread on me"