December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: federal crime
by f_griffith＠ccsvax.sfasu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> >> >How can something be a federal crime in only 3 states? >> >> > By interpretation of the circuit court of appeals (federal) for that area.

1 0

the rest of the key
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I was just wondering.... If the NSA could get it's hands on half (40) of any particular clipper key, wouldn't that just leave 2^40 to compute? Even with brute force, it's trivial even next to DES. Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced comunication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLZmvbtCcBnAsu2t1AQE5MwP9E46rrqaqqDRASdd5EHuRgkvGmax3y/3n RQ7xIRT+ixXBfKMnSDdcScdV9OqR6JcQJFru88zynqj4XaU6u1olYKPKJhjpO1ry nE8vHi4UO8qkg4B3cnf2XZVlkwrICTzGGhZjHuqws0R3C++1AGmVBA/UrlHQxwZn h9jU4GRUHQI= =xVfX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

No Subject
by Whitney, Mara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi. Netta suggested I write you about joining your list, or at least that's what I think she said. We were at CFP '94 and a lot was goining on simultaneously. My name is Mara Whitney and you can reach me at maraw@fs- gate.uchicago.edu. Thanks, Mara

1 0

Re: cfp '94 transcript
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I have a question concerning the algorithm that is used in the > Clipper Chip, Skipjack..[]..There is a certain amount of conjecture > that in fact the algorithm contains a deliberately encoded weakness > that will allow the NSA, without access to the escrow keys, to be > able to intercept communication in their mission to monitor on- > shore and off-shore communications..[].. > > BAKER I'll answer it yes or no if you'll > tell me exactly the question. > > UNKNOWN Does it or does it not contain a > weakness that allows you to intercept the communications without > access to the escrow keys. > > BAKER No. The response is incorrect; I'll leave moral judgements about whether the constitutes deliberate lying or mere confusion to others :-) Specifically, the Clipper Chip does *not* use the escrow keys - it uses its device unique key, which can be derived from them. It *could* have been designed to use the escrow keys to do the device-unique-key generation internally, or even to do *two* separate encryption rounds in LEAF creation so there isn't just one key, but nooo. Decryption of LEAF also does not use the escrow keys, it uses the device unique key as well. The Black Box For Cops may very well use the escrow keys to derive the device unique key, but anybody who has access to the Skipjack and LEAF algorithms and Family Key and the device unique key can do the decryption, and you can probably feed the Black Box For Cops the device-unique key and 000000..00 instead of the escrowed key-parts. (They'd have to do some *really* special checking otherwise.) So how do you get the device unique key without using the escrow keys? - Maybe you can FOIA it - Maybe the Key Generation Bureau can steal it during manufacturing - Maybe the Key Generation Bureau can just *take* it during manufacturing, since the Attorney General's rules don't say not to. - Maybe the Key Generation Bureau can steal the two half-keys before (or after) giving them to the so-called "escrow" agents, which means they're not really the escrow keys. - Maybe the Key Generation Bureau can re-generate the keys, either by stealing the input batch parameters from the escrow agents or by brute-force searching the range of inputs they might have provided or something similar. - Maybe the Black Box For Cops lets you extract the data from it, either directly or by handing it carefully-designed input - Maybe authorized government employees can obtain the keys for chips for internal use, and then distribute those chips to victims\\\\\\\suckers\\\\\\customers outside government. - Maybe the rules for access to government-used Clipper-chip keys are or will be different than for keys used by the public. After all, their responsibilities for protecting internal information are different than their ability to wiretap people. So maybe they just "misread" a serial number and get the chip keys from the wiretapping-each-other list instead of the escrow agencies by "mistake - those keys aren't "escrowed", since the escrow agents don't have them they're just "retained for internal use". "Wiretap the usual suspects!" Bill Stewart # Bill Stewart AT&T Global Information Solutions, aka NCR Corp # 6870 Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton CA, 94566 Phone 1-510-484-6204 fax-6399 # email bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com billstewart(a)attmail.com # ViaCrypt PGP Key IDs 384/C2AFCD 1024/9D6465

1 0

Web of Trust?
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One of the key concepts widely used to describe PGP is the "web of trust". This brings to mind a network of connections between people who know and communicate with each other. Two people who want to communicate can do so securely if there is a path of connections in the form of signed keys that joins them. But this is not quite right. The fundamental fact about PGP key signatures, which is often misunderstood, is this: You can only communicate securely with someone whose key is signed by a person you know, either personally or by reputation. In other words, if I want to communicate with joe(a)abc.com, I can only do so if one of the signators of his key is a person I know. If not, I have no way of judging the validity of his key. This belies simple interpretations of the "web of trust". I may have signed A's key, A has signed B's, B has signed C's, C has signed D's, and D has signed Joe's, but this is of no value unless I know D. Only then can I trust Joe's key. This means that, in the "web" picture, I can only communicate securely with people who are at most two hops away in the web of connections. I can communicate with the people I know, and I can communicate with the people they know, and that is it. This is unfortunate, because the simple web model ties into some famous research which suggests that any two people chosen at random are only about half a dozen steps apart in the web of who-knows-whom connections. (This result is where the title of the movie "Six Degrees of Separation" comes from.) If you had a system which actually supported communications via such a web model, it actually would have hope of letting two people communicate who did not have a very long chain between them. But PGP, with a maximum chain length of two, will not allow this. What would have to be added in order to allow a true web of trust model to be used in a program like PGP? Basically what is needed is some way to judge the trustworthyness of signatures by people you don't know. This would most plausibly be provided by the people who had signed their keys. For example, if there were another type of key signature which did not only vouch for the person's identity, but also for his trustworthyness and care in signing keys, then a chain of such signatures could serve as the basis for a true web of trust. Obviously such signatures could not be given out nearly as easily as the kind we have now, where a glance at some stranger's drivers' licence is often all we get, but they could be given to close friends and those we know and trust. More elaborate systems might include numerical ratings of trustworthiness which would help to estimate the strength of any given path. The main point is that some information of this kind would be needed in order to allow communication with people distant in the web of connections. Without this, I think we will continue to have problems with PGP being unable to validate keys of people we want to communicate with. People will collect huge laundry lists of signatures in the hopes that whoever wants to commu- nicate with them will know one of those people. Centralized key validators will appear (as in the case of the SLED service being started now, which will sign a key based on a signed check with your name on it). The result may be a choice between using an unsigned key or using one signed by some faceless bureaucracy, which is no better than the original PEM conception. (People may be confused by this essay because they thought PGP worked this way already. PGP does have a follow-the-web model, but that is only for following signatures. In the example above, where I wanted to talk to Joe and there was a chain to him through A, B, C, and D, we have to first sup- pose that I know and trust all of A, B, C, and D. Given that, what PGP can do is to determine whether I have valid keys for all of those people. It will notice that A has signed B's key, so it is valid. I know B and told PGP he was trustworthy, and he signed C's key, so therefore that one is valid. Sim- ilarly, I know C and I know D so PGP can follow the chain through them. Fin- ally we come to Joe, whom I don't know, but because I know D and PGP followed the web to determine that D's key is valid, PGP can determine that Joe's key is valid. But again, that was only because I knew D and everyone else in the chain. The bottom line is still that I can only communicate with people who know someone I know.) Hal

1 0

questions for the NRC crypto committee...
by Herb Lin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bellovin writes: A useful exercise for this group might be to compile a list of questions that they *should* answer if they're playing it straight. These could be forwarded to the review committee, too. If we come up with a good list, I'm willing to submit it to them. **** As the guy staffing the NRC's review project of national cryptography policy, I encourage you (and other cypherpunks) to do so. Please forward to me the questions you think the review panel should be asking. So that your questions stand out, please put in the subject line: Crypto panel question thanks.. herb lin

1 0

FW: mail problem
by Garth Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The author stated use of 8 processors and "aggressive vectorization", or, IOW, Using the 8 processors in conjunction instead of as 8 separate data paths, making their co-operative speed MUCH faster than an 8X increase. ---------- | From: Adam Shostack <netmail!adam(a)bwh.harvard.edu> | | Could someone explain why jumping to 8 processors knocks the | time down by a factor of 400, instead of a factor of 8? Is the 400 | billion years a load of crap, intended to sound more impressive than | 8? |

1 0

RANDOM>Quantum Randoms?
by ddt＠lsd.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yatahey, Listen, I've been lurking the list for many moons, but will be visiting more regularly again, so please forgive if this has already been discussed. However much I tilt at Life's many windmills, I never for a moment lack interest in Crypto matters, so natcherly I noticed the juicy tidbit below in Sci Am with great interest (what jumped out at me was the part about "'truly' random numbers"). I OCRed it and am posting it to see if any of you saw it and what comments you might have about its implications for the future generation of randoms... not to mention for regular computing. dave ******* David Del Torto <ddt(a)lsd.com> ******* ******* Level Seven Development <internaut(a)eWorld.com> ******* ******* "If you don't like your Government, grow your own." ******* ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Quantum Computing Creeps Closer to Reality More than a decade ago a small group of physicists, among them Richard P. Feynman, began wondering whether it would be possible to harness quantum effects for computation. Until recently, such investigations have been highly abstract and mathematical. Now Seth Lloyd, a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory, has proposed in Science how a so-called quantum computer might actually be built. Lloyd points out that in one sense "everything, including conventional computers, and you and me, is quantum mechanical," since all matter obeys the laws of physics. One feature distinguishing quantum computers from conventional ones, Lloyd explains, is the way they store information. Conventional computers use electrical charge or its absence to represent 0's or l's used in the binary language of data storage. In a quantum machine, information would be represented by the energy levels of individual particles or clusters of particles, which according to quantum mechanics occupy discrete states; the ground, or "dow n," state could signify a 0 and the excited, "up" state a 1. Lloyd says such computers could be made out of materials with identical, repeating units that behave quantum mechanically, including long organic molecules, or polymers; arrays of quantum dots, which are clusters of atoms with precisely controllable electronic properties; and crystals. "Something as simple as a salt crystal might do," he states. Input is supplied by pulses of light or radio waves, which would nudge the atoms, molecules or quantum dots into energy levels representing, say, a particular number. More pulses of light would cause the system to carry out a computation and disgorge an answer. Because quantum systems are notoriously susceptible to disruption from external effects, an error-correction program would monitor the progress of a computation and put it back on track when it goes awry. Such a computer would be much smaller and faster than any current model, Lloyd contends. It could also perform certain tasks beyond the range o f any classical device by exploiting a bizarre quantum effect known as superposition. Under certain precisely controlled conditions, a particle can briefly inhabit a "superposed" energy state that is, in a sense, both down and up. It has a 50-50 probability of "collapsing" into one state or the other. Computers that can store information in a superposed form, Lloyd suggests, could generate truly random numbers, a task that has proved fiendishly difficult for classical computers. They could thus solve certain problems with a probabilistic element-such as those involving quantum mechanics-more accurately than can conventional machines. Rolf Landauer of the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, an authority on the limits of computing, has "a number of reservations" regarding Lloyd's scheme. Landauer argues, for example, that Lloyd's error-correction method will destroy the very superposition that he seeks (for reasons related to the fact that mere observation of a quantum system alters it). Yet Lloyd's work is still "a step forward," Landauer says. "He's given us something to evaluate in more detail." -John Horgan Scientific American, April 1994, Page 18 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQCNAitfCt4AAAEEANk+zWV0Z1tnxsJm25BAvH2NI68RbNOaumDofJgVUL9BePQI HNNbOdu4gAmhcEXMvFVwu3vju4nh9qnzz7lYpw5Yh6TcgVI+vb9OsljfAR+ibhDN j5ParKfwZ+mexOCAfrgdt1z71XLY588qxs70ha6u76dvxUsdw6HBOF9KrwDlAAUT tCJEYXZpZCBEZWwgVG9ydG8gPGRlbHRvcnRvQGFvbC5jb20+ =YGwT -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Call setup without warrants?
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Everyone talks about the DTII Act's allowing the monitoring of 'call setup information' without a warrant. I can't seem to find where exactly in the text of the Act is this stated. All paragraphs about call setup information mention the requirement of 'court order or lawful authorization,' exactly as required for interception. These include Section 3a(1)-(4) defining the 'assistance requirements' of common carriers, as well as 3i(7), which defines 'call setup information': > (7) 'call set up information' shall mean the information > generated which identifies the origin and destination of a wire or > electronic communication placed to, or received by, the facility or > service that is the subject of a court order or lawful authorization, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > including information associated with any telecommunication system dialing > or calling features or services; In the EFF's section-wise analysis of the draft bill last month, there was no indication of any loopholes in the 'lawful authorization' bit. The only thing I noticed was the 'routability exceptions' in Section 3a(4) allowing monitoring at the common carrier's premises about which the EFF analysis said: > The exceptions to this "routability requirement" occur when a criminal or > intelligence emergency pre-empts the normal process of seeking an order, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > or when there is an attempt by the person committing an offense to thwart > interception by changing facilities. These types of situations are provided > for under current law. However, it seems clear that (a) this is exceptional and (b) it is equally applicable to *both* call setup as well as interception. What I want to know is whether I'm missing any basis *in the Act itself* for this assumption of CS information without authorization? If not, is there any other *specific* basis, such as that for the possible outlawing of encryption in the statement that "there is no constitutional guarantee to unbreakable crypto?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "What is civilisation rishab(a)doe.ernet.in, rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in but a ribonucleic Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 hangover?" H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Another view of the CFP
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is redistributed with the author's permission. Do a search on "Lytel" for some especially interesting stuff. Jim Gillogly Sterday, 8 Astron S.R. 1994, 17:30 ------- Forwarded Message Subject: CFP summary Lorrie Cranor's CFP94 Conference Review The following is my second annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference report. Last year I wrote a report on CFP93 for my advisor and friends and soon had requests to distribute it around the world (followed by rebuttals from half the EFF board). So this year I'll go ahead and grant permission for reposting in advance. If you do repost or if you have any comments or corrections, please let me know. I have tried my best to accurately quote people and get the spelling of speakers' names right. However, I have not had the opportunity to listen to a tape of the proceedings, double check with the speakers themselves, or even carefully edit this report, so there may be some (hopefully minor) errors. Anyway, here is the CFP94 conference as I experienced it. All unattributed opinions are my own. I flew into Chicago around noon on March 23 and took the train to the Palmer House Hilton, the conference hotel. I was impressed with the way the train stopped almost right at the hotel entrance -- until I realized that my room was almost directly above the train station. At CFP93 last year I was often tempted to skip a session, enjoy the sunshine, and walk along the bay. However, at CFP94, held in a high rise hotel in the middle of a maze of very tall buildings and elevated train tracks that prevented all but the most determined sun beams from making their way down to street level, this was not a temptation. I missed the morning pre-conference tutorials, but arrived in time to attend a three-hour afternoon tutorial session at the John Marshall Law School (a few blocks away from the conference hotel). The election tutorial I had planned on attending was canceled, so I went to a tutorial on cryptography instead. Despite the hot stuffy air in the room (as they wheeled in auxiliary air conditioners and draped air hoses around the room the people from Chicago kept explaining that it wasn't supposed to be 75 degrees in Chicago in March and that very tall buildings don't adapt well to temperature change), the cryptography tutorial was quite interesting and informative. Lawyer Mark Hellmann gave some good background information in his introduction, but Matt Blaze of AT&T Bell Labs stole the show with his presentation titled "Everything you need to know about cryptography in just 60 easy minutes." Blaze explained why cryptography is useful/necessary, how some popular cryptosystems work, some applications in which cryptography is used, and questions people should ask before using a cryptosystem. His conclusion was "Be realistic, but be paranoid." Douglas Engert of Argonne National Laboratory followed with a rather rushed and confusing explanation and demonstration of Kerberos, a "practical implementation of encryption." Conference chair George Trubow officially opened the single-track conference at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday morning. He announced some changes to the conference program and introduced John McMullen, scholarship chair. McMullen introduced the scholarship recipients (including myself) and noted that three-time scholarship winner Phiber Optik would not be in attendance because he is currently in jail. The keynote address, originally scheduled to be delivered by John Podesta, was delivered by David Lytel of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Lytel first spoke about the administration's plans for the National Information Infrastructure (NII), explaining that the white house was attempting to lead by example by accepting email correspondence (and maybe soon actually responding to it properly) and making white house publications available electronically. (Look for a "welcome to the white house" WWW server sometime soon. Information from the II task force is currently available via gopher from iitf.doc.gov.) Lytel then put himself in the line of fire by discussing the administration's encryption policy. He stated the goals of this policy as 1) to provide a higher baseline security for everyone and 2) to maintain the ability to do wiretaps. Notably, he stated: "There will be no restrictions on domestic use of encryption," and "If you don't think Clipper is secure, don't use it." Then the bombing began. In the following Q&A session, Lytel claimed ignorance on many points of the Clipper proposal, but did make some interesting claims. He stated that (here I've paraphrased): - Clipper will be a government procurement standard that agencies may choose to use in addition to other standards. - The establishment of a public key registration system for all public key cryptosystems is important (this has not been officially proposed). - Clipper-encrypted messages may be further encrypted with another cryptosystem. However, messages may not be encrypted before being encrypted with Clipper. - The public is more at risk from criminal activity (which Clipper may be able to prevent) than from government abuse of power. - Clipper was designed by the government for it's own use. But they wouldn't mind if it becomes popularized as a commercial product. - Clipper was only designed to catch "dumb criminals." - Clipper does not make it easier or harder for law enforcement to get permission to do a wire tap. After a short break, Lytel took the podium again as one of six panelists in a discussion of "The Information Superhighway: Politics and the Public Interest." The panelists generally agreed that the information superhighway should provide "universal access" and two-way communication. They all seemed to fear a future in which the information superhighway was simply a 500 channel cable television network in which two-way communication only occurred when consumers ordered products from the home shopping network. Jeff Chester of the Center for Media Education stressed the need for public activism to prevent the form and content of the information superhighway from being determined only by cable and telephone providers. In the following Q&A session the "information superhighway" was dubbed a bad metaphor ("The vice president's office is the department of metaphor control," quipped Lytel.), and subsequently used sparingly for the remainder of the conference. Thursday's lunch (all lunches and dinners were included in the price of admission) was the first of many really bad meals served at CFP. I requested vegetarian meals and winded up eating plate after plate of steamed squash. My meat-eating friends claimed not to enjoy their meals either. Fortunately the lunch speaker was much better than the lunch itself. David Flaherty, Canada's Information and Privacy Commissioner, explained what his job entails and gave some interesting examples of privacy cases he has worked on. The first panel discussion after lunch was titled "Is it Time for a U.S. Data Protection Agency?" The panelists agreed that with all the information currently being collected about people, it is time for the U.S. to institute an organization to help protect privacy. Currently, litigation is the only way to force compliance with the "patchwork" of privacy laws in the U.S. However, the panelists disagreed on what form a privacy protection organization should take. The most concrete proposal came from Khristina Zahorik, a congressional staffer who works for Senator Paul Simon. Simon recently introduced legislation to form a five-member independent privacy commission. Martin Abrams of TRW objected to the formation of a commission, but supported the formation of a "fair information office." Law professor Paul Schwartz then discussed the European draft directive on data protection and stated that once the Europeans approve this directive the U.S. will have difficulty doing business with Europe unless a U.S. data protection board is formed. In the next panel discussion, "Owning and Operating the NII: Who, How, and When?" Mark Rotenberg of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) played talk show host as he questioned four panelists. The panelists stressed the importance of universal access and privacy for the NII. Barbara Simons, chair of ACM's new public policy committee USACM, was particularly concerned that the NII would be viewed as an electronic democracy even though large segments of the U.S. population would be unlikely to have access to it. "I worry that when people talk about electronic democracy they might be serious," she said. She added that NII discussions are exposing all of the major problems with our society including poverty and poor education. Her comments were interrupted by a call to the podium phone, which turned out to be a wrong number. Jamie Love of the Taxpayer Assets Project pointed out problems that could occur if NII providers do not have flat rate fees. For example, listservers, which are often used as organizational and community-building tools, would not be able to exist unless somebody volunteered to pick up the tab. Somebody from the audience pointed out that throughout the day panelists had been opposing plans for carrying entertainment on the NII, despite the fact that most Americans want entertainment, especially shows like Beavis and Butthead. Love explained that the panelists were not opposing entertainment plans, just plans that only include entertainment. He noted, "I personally like to watch Beavis and Butthead." After the panel discussion, conference organizers scurried to hook up a teleconference with Senator Patrick Leahy, author of the 1986 Electronic Privacy Act. Jerry Berman acted as moderator, speaking to Leahy through the podium phone as audience members watched and listened to Leahy on a projection TV. The teleconference began with some technical difficulties during which the audience could see Leahy, but only Berman could hear him. Berman reported this problem to Leahy and then told the audience, "Senator Leahy may hold his speech up in front of his face." Once the technical difficulties had been worked out, Leahy discussed the NII and problems with the Clipper proposal. The final panel discussion of the day was titled, "Data Encryption: Who Holds the Keys?" The discussion began with a presentation from Professor George Davida, whose 1970s crypto research brought him some unwanted attention from the National Security Agency (NSA). Davida explained the importance of cryptography for both privacy and authentication. The Clipper proposal, he said, was a bad idea because it would attempt to escrow privacy. He pointed out that the bad guys have a lot of money to hire hackers to write encryption schemes for them that the government does not hold the keys to. Furthermore, he opposed the idea of the NSA being responsible for an encryption scheme that many people would use to guard their privacy. "Asking the NSA to guarantee privacy is kind of like asking Playboy to guard chastity belts," he explained. Next, Stewart Baker of the NSA took the podium to deliver an ultra-slick presentation on the "Seven Myths about Key Escrow Encryption." His main points (here paraphrased) were: - If you think key escrow encryption will create a "brave new world" of governmental intrusion, ask yourself how bad governmental intrusion is today. If won't be any worse with key escrow encryption. - If you think unreadable encryption is the key to our future liberty, you should be aware that the beneficiaries of unreadable encryption are going to be bad guys. - If you think key escrow encryption will never work because crooks won't use it if it's voluntary and therefore there must be a secret plan to make key escrow encryption mandatory, you're wrong. - If you think the government is interfering with the free market by forcing key escrow on the private sector, remember that nobody is forcing the private sector to use Clipper. - If you think the NSA is a spy agency and thus has no business worrying about domestic encryption policy, you should realize that the NSA also designs encryption technology for government use. David Banisar of CPSR followed Baker with more anti-Clipper arguments. Banisar pointed out that communication systems are designed to communicate, not to provide intelligence information. If we build communications systems as intelligence systems, we are treating everyone as a criminal, he said. He pointed out that there were about 14 million arrests in the U.S. in 1992, but only about 800 wire taps. The encryption panel was followed by the annual EFF awards reception and the conference banquet. (Incidentally, I can't complain about the EFF board the way I did last year because most board members were not present this year. Seriously, though, I have been much more impressed with the way EFF has been reaching out to its members this year.) During dinner (more squash) Ben Masel of NORML lectured my table on how to legally harvest marijuana. After dinner, the lights dimmed, choir music played, and Simon Davies walked through the banquet hall garbed in pontifical robes. The founder and Director General of Privacy International, Davies told the audience he would read from "The Book of Unix." Davies read a witty parable about privacy in the U.S. and then urged the audience to "get off their computer screens and start lobbying ordinary people." He said efforts like CPSR's anti-Clipper petition only reach people on the net, not the general public. Unless the public becomes aware of privacy problems, there will be no privacy in the U.S. within 15 years he stated. Following Davies' talk, conference participants went to Birds-of-a-Feather sessions, some of which ran until almost midnight. I stopped by a BOF for scholarship winners before attending a lively discussion on "Censorship of Computer-Generated Fictional Interactivity." The second day of the conference began at 9 a.m. Many participants had not gotten enough sleep the night before, and many skipped the first session on health information policy. Congressional staffer Bob Gellman discussed a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would provide for comprehensive rules for using health information, patient rights for access to and correction of their health information, and security of health data. He said the bill was important because health reform will increase the use of medical information. (The bill is available via gopher from cpsr.org. An OTA report on privacy of computerized medical information is available via FTP from ota.gov.) Janlori Goldman of the ACLU added that privacy has been an afterthought in health care reform proposals. All panelists agreed that if the privacy problem is not dealt with, patients will withhold important information from their doctors so that it does not appear in their medical records. In response to a question from the audience about the use of social security numbers as medical identification numbers, the panelists gave conflicting responses. Goldman opposed the use of the SSN for identification purposes because it is not a unique identifier and because it is already used for other purposes and thus easy to cross reference. However, Gellman argued that if a new identification number is introduced, it will soon have the same problems as the SSN. He said the SSN should be used, but there should be restrictions on its use. Lee Ledbetter of HDX added that most databases can do cross references based on telephone numbers. The panelists also discussed the problem of informed consent. Gellman explained that people often sign away privacy rights through informed consent because they think they have to, not because they really are informed or consenting. The next panel was titled, "Can Market Mechanisms Protect Consumer Privacy?" This discussion, which centered around whether privacy is a right or good, was probably most easily understood by the lawyers and economists (I am neither) in the audience. Of note, panelist Eli Noam suggested that consumers could reduce intrusion on their privacy by telemarketers if telemarketers could only reach them through personal 900 numbers. Mark Rotenberg explained that the real problem with caller ID is that the phone companies use it to sell rights to consumers. One audience member challenged a panelist's proposal that people should own the information about themselves asking, "Who owns your birthday -- you or your mother?" The lunch lecture was eloquently delivered by Phil Zimmermann, author of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), a public key encryption tool. Zimmermann, who is being investigated for export control violations but has not been indicted, told the audience that the future of privacy in America is not hopeless. Referring to the Clipper proposal he said, "We live in a democracy here... we ought to be able to stop it." Zimmermann explained why he developed PGP and allows it to be distributed free of charge. He also spoke out against the fact that all public key cryptography patents are in the hands of one company (thus those who use PGP without licensing the cryptographic algorithm may be breaking the law). The next panel discussion focused on "Creating an Ethical Community in Cyberspace." Computer science professor Martin van Swaay began by explaining the importance of trust in a free society. "Freedom is not the absence of restraint, but the presence of self restraint," he stated. He said freedom is necessary to earn trust, and trust is necessary to give laws meaning. Philosophy professor Bruce Umbaugh then discussed anonymity and pseudonymity in cyberspace. He gave some examples of cases where pseudonymity is useful but anonymity is not and explained why anonymity is much more of a threat than pseudonymity. Steven Levy, author of Hackers, then discussed the hacker ethic and how it is helping to shape cyberspace. In response to a question, van Swaay said he reserves the right to ignore anonymous messages because, "If you have something real to say, why do you want to hide? And if you want to hide, it makes me wonder why." Most non-computer-scientists skipped the next panel discussion, "Standards for Certifying Computer Professionals." However, among computer scientists, the panel was quite controversial. Professor Donald Gotterbarn explained that both ACM and IEEE are considering licensing proposals. He discussed one proposal that would impose mandatory licensing on computer professionals. The proposal called for various levels of licensing, based on skill and areas of competence. Attorney Steve Barber explained some of the problems with a licensing model, including the fact that licensing is usually handled by the states and thus varies from state to state. John Marciniak of CTA Inc. stated that the computer industry does not need licensing because the companies, not the programmers, stand behind their products. He suggested that a voluntary certification program be considered instead. Another panelist (whose name was not in the program) insisted that "when a B777 [a plane with completely computerized controls] goes down, we will have licensing." He suggested that computer professionals come to a consensus about what kind of licensing they want so that they can tell congress when congress demands licensing. Gotterbarn urged people interested in working on a licensing proposal to contact him at d.gotterbarn(a)computer.org. The final panel of the day, "Hackers and Crackers: Using and Abusing the Networks," was led by Emmanuel Goldstein, publisher of 2600 magazine. Goldstein hung a sign reading "hackers" on the table where the four other panelists sat. He hung a sign reading "crackers" on an empty table at the opposite side of the podium. "One thing that distinguishes hackers from crackers is that hackers are here and crackers are not," said Goldstein. After rattling off several other differences he looked under the empty table and retrieved three boxes of crackers (the edible kind). "Alright I stand corrected," he quipped. As Goldstein spoke admiringly about hackers and their quest for knowledge, several audience members were mumbling that they didn't understand. Goldstein then unveiled a large photograph of hacker Phiber Optik and played a taped message that Phiber recorded from prison. Panelist Bruce Fancher of Mindvox said he used to think there was no problem with breaking into other peoples' computer systems. "I think my opinion changed when I started running a public access Internet site....[I discovered that a breakin] wasn't that charming." He encouraged hackers to explore and learn about computer systems, but urged them not to break into other peoples' systems. Panelist Robert Steele described hacking as "elegance." He explained, "Hacking is doing it better than it has ever been done before," no matter what "it" is. He added that hackers should not be blamed for breaking into systems because most systems are wide open to attack. "Ethics is nice. Engineering is better," he stated. Panelist Bob Strantton of UUNET discussed the need for an electronic "place" people can go to learn things without disrupting the work of others. During the Q&A session Goldstein illustrated how unsecure computer and telecommunication systems are by picking up a cellular phone call on a hand-held scanner, much to the amazement of some audience members. The day's program concluded with a dinner reception at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry. The food was tasty (finally a decent meal) and the museum exhibits were both educational and enjoyable. The final day of the conference began with a 9 a.m. panel on "The Role of Libraries on the Information Superhighway." Carl Kadie, editor of Computers and Academic Freedom News, described several cases in which he had turned to library policies when recommending solutions to computers and academic freedom problems. Kadie explained that libraries have adopted policies that protect free speech and free access to information. Next Bernard Margolis, director of Pikes Peak Library District discussed the roles of libraries on the information superhighway, describing libraries as on ramps, filling stations, and driver training schools. He also noted that as electronic resources have been added to the Pikes Peak libraries, the demand for traditional resources has not decreased. Elaine Albright of the University of Maine library described some of the issues related to electronic information delivery currently being discussed by librarians. A pamphlet discussing these issues is available from the American Library Association by contacting u58552(a)uicvm.uic.edu. The next panel, "International Governance of Cyberspace: New Wine in Old Bottles -- Or is it Time for New Bottles?" was another discussion for the lawyers in attendance. I got lost in the legal jargon as panelist discussed whether cyberspace has sovereignty and what sort of laws could be practically enforced there. Panelist Herbert Burkett described the net as "the greatest threat to national sovereignty since the opening of the first McDonalds in Paris." In the Q&A period, cypherpunk Eric Hughes put the whole conversation in perspective (for me at least) when, referring to people who use cryptography to hide their identities, he asked "How is national sovereignty going to have any effect if you can't find us?" The final conference lunch featured more squash and short presentations from three of the student paper competition winners (the fourth winner, a student from the computers and society course I taught last semester, was not able to attend the conference). The first panel after lunch discussed "The Electronic Republic: Delivery of Government Services over the Information Superhighway." This was an interesting, but relatively low bandwidth session about how governments can use information technology to collect and disseminate information. Panelists from information "kiosk" vendors had nothing but praise for pilot projects in several states. However, Jeff Arnold of the Cook County circuit court raised a number of concerns about allowing the public to access computerized court records. In particular he was concerned about people who want to use court records to generate advertising mailing lists (a list of recent divorcees or traffic offenders for example) and liability for incorrect information. The next panel, "Education and NREN, K-12" was quite interesting, but not well attended. (By this time most conference participants were networking in the hallway outside the main conference room.) The panelists generally agreed that most schools are organized in a way that is not reflected in the organization of the Internet. Panelist Steve Hodas explained that schools are usually organized into tidy departments and that information flows mostly in one direction (from book to student). In addition schools generally regard the absence of censorship as a system failure. The Internet, on the other hand, is not tidy, allows a two-way flow of information, and views censorship as a system failure. Hodas warned, as people rush in to protect schools from the net, "we must remember to protect the net from the schools." Panelist Philip Agre added, "American democracy is suffering, in part because of educational practices." Janet Murray, a school librarian, gave a humorous presentation in which she emphasized the importance of freedom of access to information. "If you're worried about what students can access on the Internet, think about what else they have access to," she said as she displayed slides of racy material found in popular news publications. The final CFP94 session was titled "Guarding the Digital Persona." The panelists first discussed the problem of too much personal information finding its way into the hands of direct marketers. Possible solutions discussed included requiring yellow-page style advertising and creating a new legal fiction -- an electronic person with the right to own money, communicate electronically, and not be arbitrarily deleted. The legal fiction suggestion was motivated by the idea that it would be impossible to create useful profiles of people if all the information about them was compartmentalized and each compartment had a separate identity. This idea seemed to be bordering on science fiction, and thus the final speaker, science fiction writer Bruce Sterling, seemed an appropriate choice to bat cleanup. I had considered writing an abstract for this lengthy report, but I don't think I could do as good a job as Sterling did in his remarks. I have read some of Sterling's books, but this was the first time I have heard him speak. I must say, the man can speak as well as he writes, and he writes pretty darned well. Sterling began his talk by stating his general lack of concern about privacy. "Being afraid of monolithic organizations, especially when they have computers, is like being afraid of really big gorillas, especially when they are on fire," he explained. "How can privacy abuses be kept a secret?" He then proceeded to describe what he will remember about CFP94. He characterized this conference (the fourth CFP) as "the darkest CFP by far." Referring to the administration's proposed encryption policy he stated, "I see nothing but confrontation ahead." Sterling reminded the audience of David Lytel's unsettling key note address ("Who was briefing that guy?") and Stewart Baker and the seven myths that the NSA wants you to believe are not true ("a tone of intolerable arrogance"). And he mentioned Dorothy Denning, one of the few Clipper supporters in the computer science community. Denning was not in attendance this year, but she was worth mentioning because she was certainly present in spirit. Read the talk yourself if you see it posted on the net. I think Sterling identified what was on the minds of most conference attendees. While some attendees were extremely concerned about their privacy, most had never really considered that they had anything to hide, or even anything that anyone else really wanted to know. And yet, almost everyone was bothered by the Clipper proposal and the fact that it would treat them as if they had something to hide. Last year's conference was much more animated and controversial. People were constantly complaining that there wasn't enough time for all views to be heard. This year there was much more harmony; but it was a dark harmony. The disagreements among panelists seemed relatively insignificant when compared to the disagreement between the people and their government. Epilogue: As I rode the train out to the airport, I noticed an advertisement for the Chicago Sun-Times "Social Security Sweepstakes." It seems the Sun-Times is asking people to send in their names and social security numbers for a chance to win a trip to Hawaii. Is this informed consent? -- Lorrie Faith Cranor March 27, 1994 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Lorrie Faith Cranor Engineering and Policy, Computer Science Washington University http://dworkin.wustl.edu/pub/lorracks/home.html 1 Brookings Dr Box 1045 St. Louis, MO 63130 "UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, lorracks(a)cs.wustl.edu nothing is going to get better. It's not." -Dr.Seuss \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0