- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

clipper
by Timothy Newsham 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

smb(a)att.com has created a newsgroup for clipper conversation. alt.privacy.clipper I believe. I think it would be best (in keeping traffic here down and in getting everybody interested in clipper together) if everyone uses that newsgroup for clipper topics if possible.

1 0

illustrating govt's preoccupation with terrorism
by jwarren＠autodesk.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

This is an excerpt from a LONG msg echoed to me by Dave Farber. Though it's from USIA -- not a police/enforcement agency -- it is nonetheless heavily concerned with "terrorism", the theme repeatedly referenced in the White House's Clipper Chip announcement. I've included the first part down through the first article as an example, and gave only the headlines of the remaining articles -- but you get the idea. Just FYI. [And, no, I don't know where/how Dave got it electronically in the first place. :-) ] --jim =============== Posted-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 11:15:04 -0500 From: David Farber <farber(a)central.cis.upenn.edu> X-Sender: farber(a)linc.cis.upenn.edu Subject: I hope this continues to be distributed To: interesting-people(a)eff.org (interesting-people mailing list) >UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY >FOREIGN MEDIA REACTION--DAILY DIGEST > >For further information: Anne Chermak, Chief >Media Reaction Staff (P/M), Tele. No. (202) 619-6511 > >Monday, April 12, 1993 > > TERRORISM AND WORLD INSECURITY > >In recent editorials, Iran was universally recognized as the source >of the double threat of state-sponsored terrorism and Islamic >extremism. But beyond this fear and condemnation, journalists found >little common ground that would compel both North and South, and Arab >and non-Arab nations to work together to combat the global threat of >terrorism. For example, Egyptian and Algerian papers were in the >forefront in charging U.S. complicity in the current instability in >the Middle East. Those commentators asserted that the United States >had promoted Islamic fundamentalism during the Afghanistan War and >had further added to regional instability by alternately encouraging >Iraq and Iran. > >India's papers weighed the pros and cons of helping the West to >identify Pakistan's role in promoting terrorism, noting on the one >hand that doing so could "bring ruination to Islamabad's Kashmir >cause" but, on the other, could also bring India's security apparatus >uncomfortably close to the CIA and the Mossad. Arab papers continued >to portray Iraq and Libya as being unfairly treated by the UN while >Israel remains unpunished for resolutions which it has violated. > >Concerning Northern Ireland, President Clinton's message of >consolation to the victims of the Warrington bombing was seen in >British tabloids as signalling a tougher stance by the American >government against violence by the IRA. > > > >This survey is based on 32 reports from 10 countries, April 1-12. > >EDITOR: Gail H. Burke > > ===== This goes on for many pages with a range of article summaries including: > MIDDLE EAST >ALGERIA: "Middle East Equation Has Changed" >"Injustice Will Not Defeat Dignity" >"After the Neglect...Wake Up, Washington!" >"U.S. Did Not Make the Best Choice" >"Change of Tone" >EGYPT: "West Will Not Let Go Of Libya" >"Can Anybody Explain U.S. Contradictory Posture Regarding Iran?" >"Who Will Anti-Terrorism Front Target?" >"Puzzling Approach To Abdel Rahman's Stay In U.S." >"An Insult To Egyptian People, Leadership" >"Islamic Extremism Threat Has Links To Afghanistan War" >JORDAN: "Call For Arab Unity" >"Clinton Administration Should Start A New Page with Iraq" >"Arabs Should Not Support The U.S. Against Iran" >MOROCCO: "Something New In Lockerbie Issue?" >"The West Has To Understand Libya's Flexibility" >TUNISIA: "Why The War On Muslims?" > SOUTH ASIA >INDIA: "Time To Be Worldly-Wise" >"War By Other Means" >"Perils Of Intelligence Links With The CIA And Mossad" >"Embittering Ties With Pakistan" >PAKISTAN: "Another Step Closer" >"Terrorism In Kashmir" > EUROPE >BRITAIN: "Northern Ireland--Significant Gesture By Clinton" >"Clinton's Blown To IRA Killers" >ITALY: "Enter Iran" >"The Ayatollah's Latest Threat" >"Silence Over Israel" >"Warning to Iran, Islamic Fundamentalism" > > LATIN AMERICA >CHILE: "Iran's Objectives"

1 0

Clipper details via Hellman
by karn＠qualcomm.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

1 0

Fighting the Wiretap Chip Plan
by tcmay＠netcom.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

(I'm using the "Wiretap Chip" name instead of "Clipper," as someone has suggested. It _does_ carry a better message.) This essay is bit rambling, as I'm in my lousy editor and don't have time to rearrange things into a more formal essay. Instead, I'll just make a number of points. I've seen a lot of discussion here about who to talk to, how to phrase the issues, and so forth. Fax numbers (good!), phone numbers, etc. But let me point out that the public discussion is not likely to do very much, for several reasons. 1. A very tiny universe of listeners. Crypto is too abstract for most people. I doubt anything we say can change this. And "privacy" is a complicated theme....the anti- and pro-abortion sides have been bandying it about for over a decade, to little avail. The key is to reach the relatively small fraction of policy shapers, both outside government and inside. 2. Journalists want the pithy quote, the sound bite, the attention grabber. They don't really care if 37 faxes have been received in support of some position--that just isn't news. I often shake my head in despair at the demands for "good quotes," but I still try to spew them out. Ironically, my .sig block, with all the comments about "crypto anarchy," "information markets," "zero knowledge," etc., often were the triggers that got me in touch with journalists. For example, Julian Dibell of the "Village Voice" saw my stuff in sci.crypt last fall and called me...only then did he learn of the existence of the Cypherpunks group. Likewise, Kevin Kelly, of "Whole Earth Review" fame, and now editor of "Wired," contacted me to ask about the terms in my cryptically cryptic sig. (Some people have already put good stuff about "Stop the Big Brother Chip" and "Say No to the Wiretap Chip" in their sigs...this is great advertising!) 3. I've been interviewed on crypto matters by several journalists, all of whom I respect. (They were, for the record: Steven Levy, for the "Wired" piece, Kevin Kelly, as editor of "Wired" and for a possible story in "Whole Earth Review," Julian Dibell, for "The Village Voice" (forthcoming, he tells me), Dave Mandl, for a radio station in New Jersey, and a couple of minor quotes here and there. (I can't begin to compete of course with John Gilmore or Eric Hughes, in terms of numbers of interviews.) 4. My conclusion is that the very term "Cypherpunks" was useful--even though I had little to do with choosing the name and sometimes find it distasteful (I prefer Miles Davis to Nine Inch Nails, for example). Consider that there are already several well-publicized groups devoted to various aspects of computer privacy: the EFF, the CPSR, the ACLU, etc. (these groups should be well-known to all of you). Before we came along, complete with our semi-outlaw, trendy name, the standard process when a crypto or privacy issue came up would be to get obligatory interviews with John Perry Barlow (I like him, but if I read one more account of his experiences as a lyricist for the Grateful Dead I'm going to puke...this is overexposure with a capital "O"), Mitch Kapor, and various folks from the ACLU and CPSR. The Cypherpunks provide a useful contrast, in my opinion. 5. And the Cypherpunks turn out to have a lot of very bright and interesting people, including many from the phone phreaker community, the PGP development community, and various other subcultures (like FidoNet, modem makers, wireless communications, and so on). This automatically makes us more diverse than groups like the CPSR and ACLU. 6. In a sense, we occupy an ecological niche that meets certain journalistic needs. 7. In summary, I wouldn't place a lot of emphasis on standard political actions...it just doesn't go very far. Talking to our friends and family will have a miniscule effect, both in raw numbers and because the next election is a long way off. Need I say more? Subversive actions that generate media attention, that trigger other people to begin to do things (such as homebrew voice encryption with SoundBlaster boards and CELP compression, as just one example), and that create new communities (Cypherpunks, Extropians, etc.), are much more effective. By the way, in a more standard way of doing things, I've been in touch with Jim Bidzos, President of RSA Data Security. I sent out a note on this recently. And I'll be meeting this evening with Eric Hughes, who's visiting the Monterey Bay area. We may be calling an emergency meeting of the Cypherpunks soon. Stay tuned. Don't get me wrong, folks. These are crucial times. A "War on Crypto" that mimics the "War on Drugs" is a distinct possibility. Any actions we take, from writing letters to calling t.v. stations to boycotting vendors of the "Wiretap Chip," will be useful. -Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.

1 0

MEDIA: Adam Smith
by David Reeve Sward 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

One person I didn't see listed is Adam Smith. Sometime during the last week of March he aired a piece about privacy - use of SSN, the information you can get via computer & modem and others. He may be receptive to wiretap chip debate. -- David Sward sward+(a)cmu.edu Finger or email for PGP public key 3D567F fingerprint = E5 16 82 B0 3C 96 DB 6F B2 FB DC 8F 82 CB E9 45

1 0

Media Blitz
by uni＠acs.bu.edu 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

Having sent faxes to all the targets on my media list, I'm looking for the following: 1> A Fax number for AT&T public relations so I can explain to them that they can count my business out if they don't wise up. 2> A Fax number for Intergraph Corp 3> Internet addresses for same. I sent the following text to several media contacts: April 18, 1993 Sir or Madam, I am sending this text to call your attention to what I and others believe to be a grievous attack on privacy for the private sector and the public at large. On April 16, 1993 the White House Office of the Press Secretary issued a statement regarding the administration's emerging policy on encryption hardware and technology. In short this policy is a ruse. With the increasing reliance on data links and E-Mail to communicate, cryptography has evolved to protect the otherwise vulnerable data traffic in this country. E-Mail and data transfers are not as secure from tampering and compromise as is the postal service. Messages sent through mail nets have no "envelopes" and are unprotected from the prying eyes of system administrators on any of the many nodes a message may pass through. Indeed those using electronic mediums for mail services are entitled to some reasonable assurance of privacy. As a result, cryptography and encryption have become fruitful industries in this country. The Clinton administration seems well on the way to destroying this industry and stomping on the rights of citizens to secure their communications from surveillance. The "Clipper Chip Proposal," which is becoming known in the academic community as the "Big Brother Proposal," bills itself as a solution to the conflict between law enforcement and "crypto industry." It is not. By enforcing the Clipper technology as a standard, the Clinton administration has taken the first step in regulating all encryption technology and selling short the American people. The Clipper technology, by the administration's own admission, is compromised from the beginning. Cipher keys for Clipper hardware are to be segmented and stored in depositories maintained by two agencies, (which remain yet unnamed) and released with "the proper authorization." No one educated in the nuances of encryption would take such a system seriously. Willingness to accept a system that comes already compromised is simply unimaginable, at least while other systems are still around. The administration insists that the algorithm for the Clipper technology is secret, and will not be released to the academic sector or the public at large. A vital part of the development process of any new algorithm is its' ability to withstand the scrutiny of the academic and private sectors. The current encryption standard (DES) is a prime example. The algorithm for DES was made available to the academic and private sectors at no loss of security to those using DES based systems. Indeed the weaknesses of DES were eventually revealed by the academic sector as a direct result of this scrutiny. Part of the mark of a well designed system is in the ability to remain secure despite disclosure of the algorithm. No entity can be expected to trust such a system without being able to review it for additional "backdoors" written into the system. I cannot fathom that the administration has not realized these points. They must know that such a system as the Clipper Chip is unmarketable and doomed to failure in its' current state. As long as other technology remains available, who would buy the Clipper Chip? And how does the introduction of the Clipper Chip aid law enforcement in protecting American citizens? Alone it does not. Any organization, criminal or otherwise, would be quite content to patronize other vendors not employing the Clipper Chip, many of which currently exist. I can only assume then that the administration's next step is to place heavy regulations on other hardware and software products not utilizing Clipper Chip technology, using the availability of Clipper systems to justify their move. The increasingly authoritarian methods the administration continues to adopt deserve careful scrutiny. The precedents established by this move, namely the regulation of the software industry, denial of reasonable freedom from government intrusion in personal affairs, and government created technology monopolies, are more than alarming, but dangerous. When confronted with the possibility of facing fines or criminal penalties for which computer program we use, the phrase I hear more and more often is, "I can't believe it's happening here." Most Concerned, [Signature] Shaen Logan Bernhardt I (uni(a)acs.bu.edu) Are my letters annyoing anyone yet? uni (Dark)

1 0

MEDIA: Partial List
by Matthew J Miszewski 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

Cypherpunks, OK a couple of things. First, this is a partial list as should be obvious by the truncation of the first entry. If and when I can find the whole and complete list I will post it. Second, I post this grudgingly realizing that some might abuse it. I do feel however that the tone of discussion on the list has been positive and intellectual enough to positively affect the cause. I realize this list is not exhaustive but it is a start. Ill work on expansion. I suggest, as have others, that we utilize one simple technology extensively - fax/fax-modems. Also remember that Washington responds to perceived PUBLIC opinion. Most people dont understand crypto much less know our names. It should appear that these comments are coming from a good cross section of the country. Finally, I agree with the poster that suggested that we put forth some spokespeople of sorts. Media types love point people rather than the horizontal structure of cypherpunks. I know we will never get total agreement on whom they should be, but I think that Tim May, John Gilmore, Eric Hughes, etc. are pretty much acceptable (They represented us eloquently in WIRED) Use the list with good intent. -------------------8<---------------8<----------------- Lane Vernardos Fax: 212 7652724 Associated Press 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York NY 10020 Phone: 212 6211600 This Week With David Brinkley 1717 De Sales St., NW Washington DC 20036 David Glodt Phone: 202 8877777 Fax: 202 8877977 CBS Evening News 524 W. 57th St. New York NY 10019 Tom Bettag Phone: 212 9753693 Fax: 212 9751519 CBS This Morning 524 W. 57th St. New York NY 10019 Eric Sorenson Phone: 212 9752824 Fax: 212 9752115 CSM Publishing Society One Norway St. Boston MA 02115 Phone: 800 2257090 One CNN Center Box 105366 Atlanta GA 30348 Phone: 404 8271500 CNN, Washington Bureau 111 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington DC 20001 Phone: 202 8987900 Face the Nation, CBS News 2020 M St., NW Washington DC 20036 Marianne Brooks Phone: 202 4574321 Fax: 202 4666237 Good Morning America, ABC News 1965 Broadway New York NY 10023 Jack Riley Phone: 212 4961800 Fax: 212 8874724 Larry King Show, Mutual Radio 1755 S. Jefferson Davis Hwy. Arlington VA 22202 Pat Piper Phone: 703 6852175 Fax: 703 6852142 Larry King Live TV, CNN 111 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington DC 20001 Thomas Haddad Phone: 202 8987900 Fax: 202 8987617 Los Angeles Times Times-Mirror Square Los Angeles CA 90053 Phone: 800 5281637 Fax: 213 2377679 MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour P.O. Box 2626 Washington DC 20013 Phone: 703 9982870 MacNeill/Lehrer News Hour WNET 356 W. 58th St. New York NY 10019 Les Crystal Phone: 212 5603113 Fax: 212 5817353 Meet the Press, NBC News 4001 Nebraska Ave., NW Washington DC 20016 Christie Basham Phone: 202 8854200 Fax: 202 3622009 Morning Edition, NPR 2025 M St., NW Washington DC 20036 Phone: 202 8222000 N B C Nightly News 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York NY 10112 Steven Freidman Phone: 212 6644971 Fax: 212 6646045 New York Times, DC Bureau 1627 Eye St., NW, 7th Floor Washington DC 20006 Phone: 202 8620300 New York Times 229 W. 43rd St. New York NY 10036 Phone: 212 5561234 Newsweek 444 Madison Ave. New York NY 10022 Phone: 212 3504000 Nightline, ABC News 47 W. 66th St. New York NY 10023 Dorrance Smith Phone: 212 8874995 Fax: 212 4563335 ABC News 1717 DeSales, NW Washington DC 20036 Ted Koppel Phone: 202 8877364 Public Broadcasting Service 1320 Braddock Pl. Alexandria VA 22314 Phone: 704 7395000 Time Magazine, DC Bureau Washington DC 20001 Mr. Cloud, Bureau Chief Phone: 202 8614000 Time Warner, Inc. Time Life Bldg. Rockefeller Center New York NY 10020 Phone: 212 5221212 The Today Show 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York NY 10112 Tom Capra Phone: 212 6644249 USA Today 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington VA 22229 Phone: 703 2763400 U S News & World Report 2400 N St., NW Washington DC 20037 Phone: 202 9552000 United Press International 1400 Eye St., NW Washington DC 20006 Phone: 202 8988000 WETA-TV P.O. Box 2626 Washington DC 20013 Phone: 703 9982626 Wall Street Journal 200 Liberty St. New York NY 10281 Phone: 212 4162000 Washington Post 1150 15th St., NW Washington DC 20071 Phone: 202 3346000

1 0

Another one-way street
by AJ Janschewitz 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, the Clintoon Administration has opened up yet another electronic channel besides the one on CI$. The White House can also be reached at 5895485(a)mcimail.com. Their usual rules apply: Give a snail return address if you want a response. Looks like the "data highway" is, for the time being, a one-way street ... ==a.j.== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBK9F98xk4MFKFFwHhAQH42AP/ZRh7WRDqdP2LpkDiO2/IGzEbaVr9UR7y AeqRQAAjSCmC5o1ApJ5oAd22GIqyeaRfnpXy0WuRsJRkxdEpDLbzYnGLSCaT4DOh o4Hj4EHTFIy7exN9vRkAFaXA1E7E9dl7D1xajbv7F4L6Y26TivvhMP5WRtKuHIxW re2YpapLOuY= =amKI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: A Long History for Clipper...
by Pat Farrell 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

Timothy C. May) writes: >George Gleason writes: >> Clipper can't have been developed since Inauguration >>Day; ... >It's clearly stated that the program is at least 4 years old and that, >[supporting stuff deleted] >This doesn't mean the proposal will be casually tossed aside by Clinton as >some objections are raised. Most policies of this sort percolate up through >the entrenched bureacracies in Justice, State, Defense, NSA, etc. I was listening to a lecture by Dr. Denning (Peter J) about a week ago. He was referencing NREN, not his wife's key registration idea, but in light of Clipper, the comments are germane. He said that some of his left-coast collegues were all concerned about NREN providing equal access so it won't be a "yuppie-only" communication medium. Prof. Denning said that these well meaning folks are too late. Gore's data superhighways were announced as a big deal for political reasons by the Clinton Administration, but it was actually the result of nearly 10 years of work. He said these things take years to create, and that the consensus is in place before it announced so acceptance is assured. Clearly CLIPPER has been percolating thru the TLAs for quite some time. I think the self selection process (see The New Republic's Clincest article) has allowed those who have been sending up trial balloons to think they've reached an acceptable position. It was clear at last Fall's National Computer Security Conference (sponsored by NSA) that the TLAs were going to keep pushing to get this thru. BTW, I live "inside the Beltway" and have been trying to figure out a way to use my ability to easily popover the DC for face to face meetings to help stop this madness. I tried working with EFF last Fall, but they couldn't figure out how to use volunteer help. If any crypo-privacy list readers have ideas, please let me know. Pat (My pgp key is on the utmb and mit servers.)

1 0

Knowledge of cryptography, Was: RE: More True Names: The NIST Security Board
by Pat Farrell 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

Harry identified several names on the CLIPPER list, including: >mcnulty@ecf = F. Lynn McNulty an associate director for computer >security at the National Institute of Standards and Technology's >Computer Systems Laboratory At this Fall's National Computer Security Conference, Mr. McNulty was a speaker on the NIST's digital signature session. They talked about both the non-RSA DSS, and use of Certifying Authorities with a RSA-based scheme. At that same conference, I gave a paper on security that described a fishnet of trust between systems. This was written in February 92, well before I read Phil's "web of trust" from the PGP docs, which I read sometime over the summer. During the Q&A, I asked Mr NcNulty to compare the advantages and disadvantages of a heirarchical CA approach to an interlocking fishnet/web of trust. I hoped he would at least recognize that any heirarchy has problems from the top down if an upper level is compromised. Instead, he could not address any differences. I believe that working in the government has made the hierarchy seem to be the only implementation that he envisioned. He fobbed the question off to one of his technical underlings, but he, too, was unable to answer it (or even coherently address it). I believed then (and still do) that the closed loop process used by NIST and the TLAs has caused them to overlook a number of promissing alternatives. This means that we crypto-provacy advocates must start an education effort. Pat

1 0