- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Why GAK is uncool - preaching to the choire
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reasons why it sucks: * It assumes that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. The only way to prove you're innocent is of course to have them look at your communications. * It is the cyber equivalent of installing cameras, microphones, and other surveilance gear in every room of your house (for a desktop machine) and in your car (for your notebook/pda). * When people buy crypto enabled software they do so because they have a need for privacy. GAK puts a back door into their need for privacy which makes them not trust the software since Big Uncle can violate that privacy at whim. * People will not trust American produced crypto, American software companies will go out of business. * People who need truly secure communications will have to decide between privacy or being law-abiding. Not only does GAK assume everyone is guilty before it being proven, but it will FORCE some to break the law. It criminalizes a right that's as basic as breathing. * It will not stop any crimes, criminals will simply use strong crypto developed on their own, or older non-GAKk'ed products. Those criminals will not be caught through crypto, they will be caught through their actions in the real world - i.e. shipments of cocaine stopped at the border by rug sniffing dogs, etc. * Even if the criminals or terrorists don't use unGAKed software, they will simply develop code phrases that look like "Hi Mom, everything is fine at Camp 5, the food smells bad" to mean "send 5 tons of cocaine" and "Hi Dad, life is good at school, can you send me a pair of socks" to mean "send two tons of pot" or some such. * It installs a Law Enforcement Agent in every crypto software. That Agent is dormant until the LEA's decide to wake it, but it is the equivalent of quarterring LEA's in every crypto software, remote controlled or not, that's what GAK is. * If the DOD can't be trusted to be honorable when it comes to paying for software (see blurb in CommWeek - or was it ComputerWorld where the SPA reports that over 50% of all software intalled on DoD computers is in copyright violation!) how can the LEA's be trusted to get honest warrants for listening in? * And let's not forget the honorable DoJ and the Inslaw affair. * Well we, all know that the LEA's can easily obtain warrants by simply saying any combination of the following "suspected of: illegal drug trafficking, child porn,amassing weapons, or terrorist leanings." More likely, they'll simply listen in to all traffic the way the NSA listens in to all telegrams. If their charter doesn't allow it, they'll co-operate with the Brits and have them pass the info back to make it "legal." The Feds will simply listen to all traffic, if they see something interesting, then they'll get a warrant and listen for more. * The TLA's have to realize that the cold war is OVER, and that the American people against whom they wish to spy is their employer. Our Tax money pays these people to spy on us. We're their boss, it's time to give them new orders by voting against GAK. (Not that at this point voting means shit.) (Now if I get a chance, I'll turn that into yet another letter to fax spam kongresskritters with but feel free to appropriat the above and add to it and use it as needed...) =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

1 0

Supercomputer export link in National Security Committee report
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From JYA's copy ("Purpose and Background" section, about 8 paragraphs down): (3) It would direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow the export or re-export of encryption-capable software for non-military end-uses in any country, or computers using such software based on considerations of foreign availability. Importantly, the committee notes that section 3 of H.R. 695 would require the government to approve exports of high performance computers (so-called ``supercomputers'') if those computers contain encryption products or software that are commercially available. In the committee's view, this is one of the most serious consequences and flaws of the bill. Under this proposed arrangement, any company would be in a position to force the government to allow the export of even the most powerful supercomputer available in the United States, if they first loaded a piece of foreign-available encryption software on the supercomputer. As confirmed by Secretary Reinsch in his testimony before the committee, this provision would overturn the Spence-Dellums amendment to H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, adopted by the House on June 19, 1997, by a vote of 332-88. That amendment would prevent the inadvertent export of supercomputers to questionable end users in countries of proliferation concern. Are we getting screwed by a false link to supercomputers? Ern

3 2

source of title
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No need to answer the question. Just thought the DeToqueville quote was appropriate to our circumstances the last week or so... By, the way, if there ever was an Official Cypherpunks Reading List(tm), the "Road to Serfdom", by Hayek would certainly be on it. There's a 50th anniversary edition out, with a forward by Milton Friedman... Cheers, Bob --- begin forwarded text Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:33:07 -0500 Reply-To: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Kent Guida <kent.guida(a)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Subject: source of title To: HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Regarding the source of Hayekís title, The Road to Serfdom: Was it taken from Tocqueville? I assume it is, but Iíve seen no explicit acknowledgment. Hayekís references to T. all point to him as a soulmate and precursor. The passage in Democracy in America reads: I am convinced, however, that anarchy is not the principal evil that democracies ages have to fear, but the least. For the principle of equality begets two tendencies: the one leads men straight to independence and may suddenly drive them into anarchy; the other conducts them by a longer, more secret, but more certain road to servitude. Nations readily discern the former tendency and are prepared to resist it; they are led away by the latter, without perceiving its drift; hence it is peculiarly important to point it out. Vol 2, p.288 in Vintage edition of the Reeve translation Did Hayek ever refer to this as the source of his title? Can anyone help me out here? Kent Guida --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

ALERT: On Monday, call Congress to stop Big Brother amendment!
by Shabbir J. Safdar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=========================================================================== ____ _ ____ _ _ | __ )(_) __ _ | __ ) _ __ ___ | |_| |__ ___ _ __ Stop the Big Brother | _ \| |/ _` | | _ \| '__/ _ \| __| '_ \ / _ \ '__| Amendment, coming next | |_) | | (_| | | |_) | | | (_) | |_| | | | __/ | week in the House |____/|_|\__, | |____/|_| \___/ \__|_| |_|\___|_| Commerce committee! |___/ Posted September 18, 1997 Please forward where appropriate until September 28, 1997 This alert brought to you by The Voters Telecommunications Watch, The Center for Democracy & Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Wired Magazine, and Americans for Tax Reform _________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents Stop the Government From Building Big Brother Into The Internet What You Can Do -Please contact four leading members of Congress Background About This Alert _________________________________________________________________ STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM BUILDING BIG BROTHER INTO THE INTERNET In 1948, George Orwell described a future world in which Big Brother peaked over the shoulder of every citizen -- watching every move and listening to every word. Now, in 1997, the FBI is pushing the United States Congress to pass legislation which would make George Orwell's frightening vision a reality. Next week the House Commerce Committee will meet to consider a proposal that would require all Americans to provide the government guaranteed access to their private online communications and business transactions. Taking a page out of Orwell's 1984, the FBI-spawned proposal would require that every part of the Internet -- from the software on your computer to the network provider that carries your messages around the net -- be jury-rigged to divulge your private conversations immediately on request by the FBI (see below). Unfortunately, this is not a work of fiction. The amendment, to be offered by Representatives Mike Oxley (R-OH) and Thomas Manton (D-NY), is a serious threat to your privacy and represents the first and final step in the construction of a National Surveillance Infrastructure. A vote is expected on September 25. The future of privacy and security in the information age is in the hands of the Commerce Committee, and they need to know that folks are watching and care about the outcome. On Monday September 22, please join thousands of Internet users all across the country as we call on Congress to stop big brother. With your help and support, we can ensure that George Orwell's 1984 does not become a reality. All the information you need is attached below. _________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO 1. ON MONDAY SEPTEMBER 22, pick up the phone and call as many of the four leading members of the Commerce committee as you can: Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-VA) (202) 225-2815 Ranking member John Dingell (D-MI) (202) 225-4071 Rep. Tauzin (R-LA) (202) 225-4031 Rep. Markey (D-MA) (202) 225-2836 2. Ask for the staffer that handles the encryption issue. 3. Say that you're calling to urge the Congressman to pass SAFE (HR695) without amendments. Specifically, say that you "OPPOSE THE OXLEY/MANTON BIG BROTHER AMENDMENT. Americans should not be required to give the government keys to the front door of their house, and they shouldn't be required to give the government the keys to unlock their private online communications." Other amendments may be proposed. Please urge the Congressman to pass SAFE "as is" and oppose any amendments. Feel free to use your own words though here are some points you might want to stress: - Oxley/Manton is a dramatic expansion of law enforcement power. It would give law enforcement "immediate" access to private online communications and business transactions without any notice or knowledge to the user. - Oxley/Manton is NOT A BALANCE BETWEEN PRIVACY INTERESTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS, as some supporters have argued. It gives the FBI broad new power while stripping Americans of their Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. - Oxley/Manton would give the Attorney General authority to dictate the design of Internet services and software to suit the needs of law enforcement. - Oxley/Manton would not stop crime. Strong encryption without "immediate access" features is available today at home and abroad. - Oxley/Manton would increase opportunities for cybercrime as criminal hackers attack vulnerabilities in the key recovery access system. 4. Let us know how it went! Go to one of the following web pages, depending on who you called, and tell us about the conversation. Rep. Bliley http://www.crypto.com/member/meet.cgi?membid=va07 Rep. Dingell http://www.crypto.com/member/meet.cgi?membid=mi16 Rep. Tauzin http://www.crypto.com/member/meet.cgi?membid=la03 Rep. Markey http://www.crypto.com/member/meet.cgi?membid=ma07 5. Forward this ALERT to your friends and colleagues. 6. Feel good about yourself! Know that you've stood up for privacy, and contacting Congress is more than most people take the time to do! _________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND The House Commerce Committee is considering a bill known as the "Security and Freedom through Encryption Act" (HR 695, a.k.a. SAFE). SAFE would encourage the widespread availability of strong, easy-to-use encryption technologies in order to protect privacy and promote electronic commerce on the Internet. SAFE enjoys broad support from Internet users, civil liberties advocates, and over 250 members of Congress. Last week, the Commerce Committee delayed its vote on the SAFE bill in order to give the Committee more time to study the implications of the Oxley/Manton amendment, which would change SAFE to ban encryption which does not contain features that provide law enforcement with "immediate access" to the plain text of encrypted information, including private communications and business transactions (visit http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/) The Oxley/Manton amendment would for the first time impose sweeping restrictions on the ability of American citizens to protect their privacy on US soil. Specifically, the amendment would: * PROHIBIT THE DOMESTIC MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS OR SERVICES WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE INSTANT ACCESS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: The proposal would prohibit the manufacture, sale, import, or distribution within the United States of any encryption product unless it allows "immediate access" to the plain text of any user's messages or files without the user's knowledge. * GRANT BROAD NEW AUTHORITY FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SET TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS: The proposal allows the Attorney General to set standards for what are and are not acceptable encryption products. The proposal's requirement of immediate access to plain text would seem to seriously limit the options available to encryption manufacturers seeking approval of their products. The amendment does not specify whether the immediate access "features" could be activated (or not) at the option of the purchaser or end user. Nonetheless, requiring that such a capability be installed in all domestic communications networks and encryption products is the equivalent of enabling a national surveillance infrastructure and asserts unprecedented control over the design of Internet software, hardware, and services. The amendment is analogous to the government requiring surveillance cameras in every new house built in the United States, which could be turned on remotely by the police if you were ever suspected of committing a crime. Worse yet, such "key escrow" or "key recovery" technologies pose significant risk to the security of the Internet -- providing new points of vulnerability for hackers, terrorists, and industrial spies to exploit. A recent study by 11 of the worlds leading cryptographers concluded that the large scale deployment of such technologies would be too complex and too insecure to meet the needs of an Information Age society (see http://www.crypto.com/key_study/) Despite widespread opposition from Internet users, civil liberties groups, privacy advocates, and the computer and communications industries, Oxley and Manton plan to push for this FBI spawned amendment at the Commerce Committee vote. If it is adopted, it would represent the first and final step in the development of a national surveillance infrastructure. _________________________________________________________________ ABOUT THIS ALERT This message was brought to you by the Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org) the Voters Telecommunications Watch (http://www.vtw.org/) the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/) Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/) and Americans for Tax Reform (http://www.atr.org/) who have joined together on this alert. _________________________________________________________________ end alert 09.18.1997 net ===========================================================================

1 0

Re: LACC: DEA Agents Accuse CIA of Tapping Phones
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I sent a copy of this post to a buddy of mine who retired from the CIA not too long ago ... these were his comments on the matter; FWIW. >>>But legal experts say it could be a difficult lawsuit to >>>win, especially since an employer - in this case the >>>government - generally has a right to listen to employee >>>conversation on office phones. > >They're right. > >>>It also doesn't help that national security was involved >>>and that courts have held that U.S. citizens don't have >>>constitutional rights overseas. > >Completely wrong. No court has so ruled; the writer is confusing >the Bern Convention, signed by almost every nation on earth, which >formally establishes the the rule of "lex loci," or law of the land >where the individual is found. This is only a common-sense >restatement of old principles of Roman AND common law, whereby a >national of country X can never act with impunity in country B. >It's as old as Hammurabi. There is NO "ruling" that establishes >that an American citizen forfeits his Constitutional rights >vis-a-vis the United States Government, and to claim otherwise is >to insult the truth. > >>>``It's an uphill battle. It's going to be a tough suit,'' said >>>constitutional law expert Paul Rothstein of Georgetown >>>University. > >Maybe so. But it'll be fun to watch. We've known for years now that >the jackbooted thugs of the DEA are by far the most law-abusing, >disrespectful, rights-sneering, down-and-dirty, life-threatening, >hair-raising agents of the entire US Government. Bar none. They've >got to be watched, because they're a nasty threat to individual >liberty, and because they routinely interfere with the legitimate >work of other American intelligence agencies. (And they've been >monitored, by the way, since at least 1984, to my knowledge.) > >>>"It is not the CIA's mission, nor is it part of the >>>operations of the agency, to surveil in any manner >>>U.S. officials, or other U.S. citizens at home or >>>abroad,'' Mansfield said. > >Well, that's the kind of in-your-face lying that brings deserved >contempt down on the heads of the intelligence community. I disdain >it, and have done so publicly. The sonofabitch needs to say openly >that you're damned right the CIA and NSA do this, and here's WHY we >do it... > >>>The only exception would be in counterintelligence >>>cases, he added, and then only in consultation with >>>senior Justice Department officials. > >Yeah. A GS-12 giggler. > >>>In Horn's previous case, Leighton said, the Justice >>>Department angered DEA agents by claiming they >>>have no Fourth Amendment constitutional right >>>against wiretapping when working outside the >>>country. > >See? The ignorance of DEA agents is legendary! > >>>Leighton, a former federal prosecutor, said the >>>lawsuit doesn't address the reasons for the alleged >>>electronic eavesdropping. > >Ever heard of Title 18 of the US Code, stupid one? > >>>"My assumption is because they want to know >>>what DEA is doing, they want to rip off DEA >>>informants, they want to know DEA contacts >>>within foreign governments,'' Leighton said. >>>``And with the Cold War over, these agencies >>>are looking for a new mission.'' > >Nice try, slick. But it ain't so much the desire for their network >as it is a desire to prove that a huge number of DEA agents have >been involved in drug-running and foreign government corruption for >at least 14 years now. Like that? > >>>Horn's residence ``was the target of a U.S. >>>Government Agency-sponsored electronic audio >>>intercept,'' it said. > >I'd love to be on the stand here. I'd LOVE to hear this arrogant >schmuck try and "prove" that the "tap" (if there ever was one) was >of US origin! What an ignorant ass... > >>>"Horn had occasion to see a cable containing >>>his words in quotation marks, that he had spoken >>>to another DEA agent, set forth exactly as stated...'' > >Tsk tsk. Imagine that. And of course it just never occurs to the >fool that we can also derive such intel from third-party sources >and governments. > >>>The suit, assigned to U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene, > >Oh, yea! The same trigger-happy judge that fathered the infamous >AT&T dismemberment! > Hoo-boy! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNCGS/sdZgC62U/gIEQJRfwCgzM5bTHJx6L+oB4dIylrfSHPz8nIAoPh7 J9pGVrkG+cmaWZCyMtAFqtg1 =jc+B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "It is one of the most beautiful compensations in life that no man can sincerely try to help another, without helping himself." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

1 0

Utilize This Valuable Information and It Will Pay For Itself Right Away
by 49268935＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> UTILIZE THIS VALUABLE INFORMATION AND IT WILL PAY FOR ITSELF MANY TIMES OVER! That tiny little ad can make you wealthy! Have you ever bought anything from a classified ad? If you're like most, the answer is yes. It's a fact of life, that we as a society crave the need for information. The tiny little classified ad can effectively and efficiently deliver the information to a potential customer base that is mind boggling. A simple classified ad can fill your mailbox with orders or make your phone ring off the hook with interested prospects. Have you ever seen the same ad running over and over again in a paper? It's because it's making money. In fact the chances are good that it's in a whole lot of other papers also. Classified ads can and have made many people very wealthy. How do you think all those late night info-mercial millionaires started? ***Nationwide Newspapers V2.0 TM*** Powerful New Reference Software - The First of its Kind, Classified Advertising Tool! - Electronic Directory of over 3,600 newspapers! - Sources for Over 6,000 newspapers! - Daily, Weekly, Shoppers, Community Papers and More! - Find Hard to Reach People to Respond to Your Offer! - Advertise by City, State, Regionally, or Nationwide! - Statewide and Network Advertising, Including Pricing! - Discount Advertising Less Than $1 Per Paper! - Powerful Tool for Building Huge Downlines! - Save Time and Money with Network Advertising, 1 Call, 1 Payment & you're in 100's of Papers with Millions of Readers, at a Big Discount Over Individual Rates! SPECIAL FEATURE- Built in Sort Tool Enables Sorts by State, City, Circulation, Phone Number & More! Proof is in the Results! Here's just a few: " Thank you for your 3,600+ newspaper directory! We have built a downline of 1,800 people in 6 months & a check for over $12,000 using this directory to advertise! It contains the small town papers as well as the big ones so we can target the audience & stretch our advertising dollar. I recommend it for anyone in network marketing." S & J Linden, Sequim, WA " I just wanted to let you know how much your program has saved me time and energy, now I can place ads with ease. I think your program is simply one that anyone who has a business must have, because time is money." Andrea Hurst-Harry, Arlington, TX There is no doubt that this information can and will be a valuable asset to your business. It's the perfect product, at the perfect time, at the perfect price. We've seen similar information costing 100's of dollars. Companies charge these high fees because they know that people who understand the value of the information will easily pay for it. Our products are more advanced and we make them affordable. They say that information is power, well we look forward to supplying you with all the power you need for years to come! Price: Other companies marketing half the information we offer are charging $249 For a limited time , You pay only $49 plus shipping for this revolutionary new product. To Order Send to: S. Press PO Box 11511 New Brunswick, NJ 08906 ***Please Add $6 for shipping and handling Name:_________________________________________ Address:______________________________________ City:_____________________State:____Zip:______ Payment Method: __CHECK __MONEY ORDER Total Enclosed: $_49 + 6 =$55 _____________ </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0

Re: ALERT: On Monday, call Congress to stop Big Brother amendment!
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just got off a phone with an industry lobbyist. The conversation went something like this. "Can there be a compromise?" I asked. "I don't think there can be one that will satisfy all three or four parties involved." (I was thinking: law enforcement, national security, business, and privacy interests.) The answer: "I don't think compromise is the right word. But we need to give something to law enforcement." -Declan

2 1

Re: New Computer Security Act
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >I doubt Clinton will be at the Fort Meade HQ for a ceremony, as he's on his >way to Stanford, where both of us will, amazingly enough, be tomorrow. Wish >me luck! ................................................. If you will both be there, I wish Clinton luck. But I missed the post wherein you explained what your visit to Stanford is about? .. Blanc

2 1

politics aren't all or nothing
by Mark Hedges 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My problem with the "it's hopeless, politicians are idiots" approach is the same as my problem with Tim May's approach --- it predisposes one to think that a revolution and possibly violence are the only way to change the laws. It is an attitude which constructs an obstacle which may or may not be there. I get really sick of the inane "nuke DC" talk. Call me a naive optimist, or an idiot; I believe there's hope to wage and win the battle politically, and I think there's actually hope for real democracy without the memetics bullshit and the control and the manipulation. I got a personal reply from a Senator to whom I sent that last release (the one interviewing Michael Wilson of 7Pillars). It wasn't one of those autoresponders -- it just said "Thank you for your views" with bad text formatting. At least it did get someone's attention. It might be negative attention, but dammit, if they're going to look Wilson's reputation in the face and not at least consider that they might be wrong then they've obviously all been killed and government programmed clones installed in their place. They're really well educated people, for the most part --- somewhere along the line they must have gotten that stuff about "considering that you are incorrect" and the rest. While skimming their web pages looking for information, I found one or two senators and congress reps who actually offer PGP keys on their web pages! Senator Leahy, for one, is a vocal proponent of strong crypto. There is hope! Some of those people do see "the light" on this issue. It's a matter of getting the heavy-handed ones to just for a second consider the other side's view. I think this particular release hits hard because shit, Wilson's the virtual incarnation of Ares, and the warmongers may listen to him. I think a lot of them know they're being manipulated, but they get only a limited set of information from the "authoritative" defense and intelligence people who give them the "secret classified briefings", and they simply can't confront the spooks because they think they'd get kicked from their positions of power in a few years. If they have in their possession a testimony that a defense and intelligence _scholar_ says that the spooks are wrong, they may be able to start turning the tide. Mostly, I just don't want to get nuked. I don't want the people in Washington to get nuked. I don't want to be ostracized because a disjointed group I'm associated with has members who support nuking political opponents. "Nuke DC" is crap. "Ecash Assassination Politics" is crap. The loss of faith in one's ability to convince other people with rational discussion is crap. That whole attitude reminds me of the guys in early grade school who beat up on me because I was a nerd. I refuse to sink to their level. Mark Hedges -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNCGn+hVo2SUWMp6NAQH7lwP/dEWDmzEgx9LEs3m68KGWcKNGVUCSjFjd qOjkBKQQo9Ib+8CefheigwRPXh8J5s4aBJPDVvJbTnvJJ2F7Olr1VpvmhzDwMt8g A99iSuvn/Dn7cJUmcc5M9aeVhRtXFcl0LRsfOiHQO4eGXia3fWA6BM1pAybIzHAp 4sj8MyE+ZpM= =8r8K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 9

Re: Crypto-law etc
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)FreeGate.net> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Crypto-law etc > Date: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 2:35 PM > The longer I follow the crypto "debate" the more I begin to > understand what must have been the real intent behind the > 2nd amendment of the constitution. > > If the White House can get crypto code defined in the true > legal sense (that is backed up by case law) as a munition, > do US citizens then have a constitutional right to "bear" it? Sure. We get the same right to bear it as we have to own rocket launchers, machine guns, or flame throwers--none. The second amendment hasn't protected our right to possess those things, which pretty clearly fall into the realm of its direct intentions--why would it protect our right to use crypto, which isn't even that clear cut? > Just curious, > --Chuck --John Kelsey, kelsey(a)counterpane.com

2 1