-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jaron Lanier wrote in the _The New York Times_, January 2, 1996, p. A15: ``The other day, I came up with a way to easily evade the proposed American restrictions. My simple idea would be to create a computer program, dubbed `Unmuzzle,' which would deposit incomprehensible fragments of any forbidden material in different foreign computers (though maybe not Germany's). The contraband communication would only be reassembled into a coherent whole when downloaded in the home of the user back in the United States, where it would become protected speech, as in any other medium.'' Is this the state to which the Internet must evolve to withstand attack from the possible near-future legislation contained within the current draft of the Telecommunications Reregulation Bill? The Internet technology that was designed to withstand network outages by routing around the problem must now, perhaps, also be designed to allow information to be split for storage and transmission to navigate around mere political insanity. I know: "Cypherpunks write code!", but something seems amiss with the technical solution proposed in the opinion editorial quoted above. Many questions are begged in my mind. At first, the Jaron proposal sounds like an interesting thought experiment but a total waste of bandwidth, both CPU and network, to me. The unconstitutional Bill must be defeated in Congress, by that Presidential veto pen that Clinton has become so fond of using recently or the Court system, if absolutely necessary. If none of that happens, then surely technology can be used to route around this "political" problem. It just seems like a shame to have to expend technical effort and valuable network resources to play games to meet the letter of a law, which would so clearly break the direct spirit of the Constitution, if signed into Law and later found during a Supreme Court battle to "pass constitutional muster," as they like to say. Under my model, which may be different than Jaron's, I assume the raw data is useless without a recipe, or algorithm, if you prefer. Jaron doesn't say how the ``incomprehensible fragments of any forbidden material'' are known to be joinable and how they are to be joined so I invented this as the missing glue to discuss his idea in this forum. I assume a recipe would be a new base item fetchable via a standard URL. It would disclose the location of raw data sets, how they should be joined and the resultant data-type of the information, if the recipe were to be followed. In this way, it might be possible to work a decoder directly into Mosaic/NetScape/HotJava/<name your favorite WWW browser here>. (Perhaps a self-imposed rating could be included within the recipe as additional information bits. Or, perhaps the recipe could be signed by one or more reviewers, which may be trusted by end-users. These features are mentioned only as side features, they do not affect the basic operation to circumvent the letter of the proposed Law. Back to the questions begged and partial solutions. For instance, if one provides, in a distributed fashion, data sets --- which taken apart are not indecent in anyone's mind since they appear completely random --- and a recipe to generate information from the data sets --- which may construct something which might be considered indecent --- does anyone violate any portion of the insane Indecent Bill, if passed by Congress and signed into Indecent Law by the President? Does the person who set up the information split get in trouble? Do the people pulling in recipes and various piece of random-looking data sets get in trouble? Do the data set warehousers get in trouble, even if they could have had no direct way to know the raw pieces of data that they stored were to something eventually seen to be indecent when a recipe was followed. Do the recipe warehousers get in trouble, since they could have known what might be created if all data sets were obtained and joined as proscribed by the recipe? What if end-user client software was taught to do all the steps required to follow a recipe automatically? Same as last question, except the user was explicitly asked before any recipe was followed to completion? I think that the Court would be hard-pressed to find a difference between distribution of something indecent and a recipe known to create something indecent from raw data. But, what if recipes were used for everything, not just items thought to be borderline indecent to totally obscene. Under this assumption, if it could be shown that a recipe and raw data warehousers had no knowledge of each other's contents, they could do no self-policing. It appears that raw data warehousers have "no knowledge" of recipe warehousers as long as the raw data contains no reference to the recipe. The recipe warehousers appear to have no such luck since they contain URLs that point to the raw data chunks required to form coherent information. Recipe warehousers could follow the recipe to "check" content. Finally, on a different tangent, why do the raw data pieces have to be stored on different machines in different countries, if by themselves they are unreadable? Since I believe it is the recipe, not the contributing raw data that presents a problem, it seems like this must be the piece to be stored external to the U.S. For example, only the recipe need be stored abroad in a nice little computer in the Netherlands. Assuming the recipe included only URL-style pointers to the data sets' distributed location and mixing method, a recipe should be quite small. Imagine the Government trying to explain to a jury that random looking transmissions taken together in some exotic manner --- as described by a file fetched from outside the U.S. --- equals some filthy text or image or some other unpopular political speech. Using these rules, I could probably find three passages of text in the 100,000's of pages composing the U.S. Code that when XOR'd together generate something obscene. To make the Government's job even harder before a jury, what if the recipe to be fetched from the foreign country always generated the First Amendment text when followed directly. Imagine the Government's surprise when the Defense later shows a recipe involving the exact same information sets that, perhaps, yields the text of the First Amendment, The Indecent Bill itself or another interesting historical document. What if certain implementations of software that decode these recipes could infer another recipe implicitly encoded within the fetched data sets which were required to follow the explicitly given recipe. Since the information required to regenerate the First Amendment text will have always been pulled, in its entirety, an external observer must concluded that the receiver might have plainly followed the directions in the recipe leading to its generation instead of any hidden inferred recipe for the questionably indecent text or image. That sounds like reasonable doubt to me, regardless of the facts of the case. The Defense can always argue that the client was just trying to express the First Amendment in a novel manner, which happens to be true in more ways than one in this case. :-) The Jaron proposal does have some major benefits at least as I have framed the idea. These need to be mentioned explicitly, in case the important side goal was too subtle expressed above. I reverse the location of the bulk of the data required to store the real information. The recipe, which is assumed to be small with respects to the size of the raw data, is stored in any Internet friendly location (i.e. most of the world except the U.S. after the CDA passes) and pulled into the U.S. as required. The raw data is stored within the U.S., randomly spread between data set servers. When arranged in this manner, the bulk of the data continues to be stored as it would have been before stupid U.S. regulations took affect. This final analysis might sound U.S. centric. It was not meant to be. I assume that any information replication scheme that might have been used could continue to be used. For example, one recipe might exist for each regional replication that existed. Hopefully, the recipes themselves would be replicated in many Internet friendly locations. I welcome informed legal comments on this modified proposal. Regards, Loren -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMOpKUv8de8m5izJJAQH+cgP+MDO6TK5s1MkkiWcvSKP9wwoVn0VqMM+U hPRGQJ2MjL3s7r9mPTqlbnPOllI4FO6rBQt5vqmzMnemFG1k94REvmGHuSMxZ7xV zoqYcvZzxdG2KwKBiLWiilirA0IrDV1MQJ4i7xMYYdOoOoeN1VnUbgHW9iWquwKT tIpWzbFFGO0= =m0bM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----