Re: Lobbying/Politics/etc.
Jim Sewell writes:
The term Cypherpunks is amorphous, thus subject to use and abuse by the masses. When people like Jeff Davis and Phill Zimmermann say "The cypherpunks are generally opposed to Clipper" it makes us an "organization" which, like it or not, does have representatives and agendas.
No, it makes Messrs. Davis and Zimmerman guilty of overstepping their bounds by acting as though they speak on behalf of the amorphous group which makes up this mailing list. My saying that midget Lithuanian plumbers are generally opposed to the free sale of chocalate cherry cordials doesn't make it so. Mr. Zimmerman doesn't represent _me_. I question whether Mr. Davis represents even _himself_. If you want to play lobbyist, go ahead. Leave me out of it. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
You know.. I wonder with all this bickerig if in fact we CAN agree on the fact that we all are opposed to invasions of our privacy via governemnt surveillance techniques.. Can we agree on that issue? It seems to me that I have heard a consensus on this at least... One more thing- I recently completed a first ddrafty of a paper I am working on regarding computer curveillance, Clipper, etc- and the professor who read it asked me "What is the likelihood and what re the reaosns for the NSA and other governments agencies wanting to monitor the people?" I wasn't sure of exactly how to answer that! I mean- it seems to me that the governemnt wants to maintain its own power, and keep a watchful eye on those with opinions oppposite of their own. Any other reasons you all can think of? Hmm.. -- Jul "Can I be a social anarchist? " _______________________________________________________________________ Julie M. Albright Ph.D Student Department of Sociology University of Southern California albright@usc.edu
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >
I wasn't sure of exactly how to answer that! I mean- it seems to me that the governemnt wants to maintain its own power, and keep a watchful eye on those with opinions oppposite of their own. Any other reasons you all can think of? Hmm..
-- Jul
"Can I be a social anarchist? " Most TLAs are required, by their charter/nature/whatever, to have a very
From: Julietta <albright@chaph.usc.edu> paranoid world view. Governmental Intelligence (oxy-moron) deals with *POSSIBILITIES* before considering intent. For the most part, this is useful. However, it works both ways. WE must also deal with Possibilities before considering Intent. Most employees of TLAs are, IMO, honest and patriotic citizens. It only takes ONE, however, to destroy all trust and credibilty for the agency. The NSAs refusal to publicly discuss ways to safeguard against such abuse is one of the key arguments against Clipper/EES and Digital Telephony issues currently under debate "on the net." (However, I *STRONGLY* urge the TLAs to continue their hard-nosed positions. Stand fast you guys. ;-) To answer your original question; the reasons why NSA would monitor us will seem completely sane and reasonable TO THEM. You MIGHT be engaged in activities harmful to "the rest of us." Even Joe Public will find their arguments difficult to refute, particularly following a terrorist-type incident involving loss of life. Likelihood? ==> 100%
it seems to me that the governemnt wants to maintain its own power,
Of course it does. Any other expectation is unreasonable. Very few (even of us altruistic heroes ;-) willlingly relinquish power once it is acquired. The trick is limit what they acquire... Dave Otto -- dave@gershwin.jta.edd.ca.gov -- daveotto@acm.org GAT d++(-)@ -p+(---) c+++ l u++(-) e++/* m++(*) s-/+ !n h---(*) f+ g+++ w+ t++ r+ y++(*)
On Tue, 3 May 1994, Dave Otto wrote:
To answer your original question; the reasons why NSA would monitor us will seem completely sane and reasonable TO THEM. You MIGHT be engaged in activities harmful to "the rest of us." Even Joe Public will find their arguments difficult to refute, particularly following a terrorist-type incident involving loss of life.
If doing activity 'A' will get the results you want, why not make 'A' happen? Consider a successful terrorist attack against a significant group of innocents (the larger the number killed, the greater the horror and shock value). The terrorists were using PGP-encrypted email to plan out the thing. Now, how long do you think it would take before ALL crypto was outlawed? Who would benefit from such a thing? Consider that it's child's play to finance, arm, and train a group of people to conduct a terrorist attack and (conveniently) they all get killed in their attack. No one's going to complain too loudly - after all, they *are* terrorists, right? One wonders just how many people who went out with their AK's and shot up schools and restaurants did it because they had been financed by someone with an axe to grind against the RKBAers. One also wonders just how long it will take before someone does the same thing to crypto.
One wonders just how many people who went out with their AK's and shot up schools and restaurants did it because they had been financed by someone with an axe to grind against the RKBAers. One also wonders just how long it will take before someone does the same thing to crypto.
To preserve *MY* sanity, I try to imagine that this can't happen here. However, reality suggests that it has :-( In this case, IMO, "they" won't need to stage anything, just be selective in the info they release. Taking advantage of the "heat of pasion" is something that lobbyist are extremely at. The only way *I* can see to counter it, is to make sure that crypto is explicitely allowed (not that banning it will stop anyone ;-) If it can be advocated as a freedom-of-speech issue BEFORE the emotions of the public are involved, we have a chance. If not, check crypto servers for public keys and mail drop info.... Dave Otto -- dave@gershwin.jta.edd.ca.gov -- daveotto@acm.org GAT d++(-)@ -p+(---) c+++ l u++(-) e++/* m++(*) s-/+ !n h---(*) f+ g+++ w+ t++ r+ y++(*)
| > One wonders just how many people who went out with their AK's and shot up | > schools and restaurants did it because they had been financed by someone | > with an axe to grind against the RKBAers. One also wonders just how long | > it will take before someone does the same thing to crypto. I'd just like to comment that this is a pretty damned sick allegation against the gun-control folks. Most of them are pretty bleeding heart, and I really can't see any of them encouraging someone to go out & shoot up a playground to get gun control laws passed. Lets please not get into the politics of gun control, but I did want to respond to one of the more offensive and lame suggestions thrown to the list in recent memory. Adam -- Adam Shostack adam@bwh.harvard.edu Politics. From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small, annoying bloodsucker. Have you signed the anti-Clipper petition?
Ed Carp <ecarp@netcom.com> sez:
Consider a successful terrorist attack against a significant group of innocents (the larger the number killed, the greater the horror and shock value). The terrorists were using PGP-encrypted email to plan out the thing.
Now, how long do you think it would take before ALL crypto was outlawed? Who would benefit from such a thing? Consider that it's child's play to finance, arm, and train a group of people to conduct a terrorist attack and (conveniently) they all get killed in their attack. No one's going to complain too loudly - after all, they *are* terrorists, right?
I suspect significant problems implementing a law that criminalizes crypto. The government currently spends $billions per year trying to eliminate illegal drugs, to very little effect. Drugs should be easier to eliminate than crypto since phys-obs can't be copied ad infinitum as bits can. There's also the matter of recognizing crypto in use. A program that transforms its input so that the output can be converted back to the input but has maximum entropy is a good compression program and might also be an encryption program. If a TLA taps my phone and finds a mysterious bit sequence, how can they distinguish reliably and cheaply between an encrypted conversation and a download of emacs-19.22.tar.gz? I don't claim *they* can't try to outlaw crypto, and I certainly don't claim they can't kill millions in the effort, but I *do* claim that eliminating crypto is a very hard problem. Inspired by my recently-arrived "Cypherpunk Criminal" t-shirt, Stephen
On Wed, 4 May 1994, Stephen Humble wrote:
Ed Carp <ecarp@netcom.com> sez:
Consider a successful terrorist attack against a significant group of innocents (the larger the number killed, the greater the horror and shock value). The terrorists were using PGP-encrypted email to plan out the thing.
Now, how long do you think it would take before ALL crypto was outlawed? Who would benefit from such a thing? Consider that it's child's play to finance, arm, and train a group of people to conduct a terrorist attack and (conveniently) they all get killed in their attack. No one's going to complain too loudly - after all, they *are* terrorists, right?
I suspect significant problems implementing a law that criminalizes crypto. The government currently spends $billions per year trying to eliminate illegal drugs, to very little effect. Drugs should be easier to eliminate than crypto since phys-obs can't be copied ad infinitum as bits can.
There's also the matter of recognizing crypto in use. A program that transforms its input so that the output can be converted back to the input but has maximum entropy is a good compression program and might also be an encryption program. If a TLA taps my phone and finds a mysterious bit sequence, how can they distinguish reliably and cheaply between an encrypted conversation and a download of emacs-19.22.tar.gz?
Unless you use some sort of stego software, most encrypted stuff is pretty easy to figure out that it *is* encrypted. grep " BEGIN PGP " message is a pretty good way to detect PGP traffic, magic numbers will tell you if it's a compressed file or not, etc. It might not be necessary to prove what you were using to encrypt, merely proving that you *were* encrypting might be sufficient. It's like the FCC: if they catch a ham sending out packets, and the FCC can't read them, they issue you a pink slip. Doesn't matter what you're using, the meaning is obscured, and that's enough for them.
<In mail Julietta said:>
You know.. I wonder with all this bickerig if in fact we CAN agree on the fact that we all are opposed to invasions of our privacy via governemnt surveillance techniques.. Can we agree on that issue? It seems to me that I have heard a consensus on this at least...
You know, she is right. I have gotten about equal amounts of mail for and against the idea of a list and the idea for a "Guide to Cypherpunks" if you will. Each were fanatically stated with few exceptions. Each was unmovable on their opinions. It is with this that I make the following statement: I will not construct a list or attempt to construct a document to tell the world what this group is. I fully support the creation of such items but do not have the patience nor, due to a situation at work, the time to wade thru tons of mail and wade thru the flames I've gotten on just an initial query. If anyone else would like to adopt this project, please contact me so I can give you my information. I will not give out the names of those who have responded to me for privacy reasons. If you wish to do this, please ask again and I'm sure the ones who responded previously will do so again if your effort is a serious one. I do want to remind those who were afraid of having their names on a list that there is a 90% chance that someone in the NSA, FBI, etc has done a whois to majordomo and already has your email name which is all that I'd suggested in the first place. I will continue to do my part to try to influence the running of this country. I am not kicking back with a beer and cigar and saying that we can do nothing and I hope it all works out. We must run our own country or our country will run us. Good luck to all and no ill will. (This list is too emotional sometimes due to the topics covered. They are beliefs and not opinions and a belief can not be changed by another person like an opinion can.) Anyway, take care Jim <No, don't jump for joy... I'm still going to be on the list! :> -- Tantalus Inc. Jim Sewell Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ P.O. Box 2310 Programmer Internet: jims@mpgn.com Key West, FL 33045 C-Unix-PC Compu$erve: 71061,1027 (305)293-8100 PGP via email on request. 1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3 C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73
I do want to remind those who were afraid of having their names on a list that there is a 90% chance that someone in the NSA, FBI, etc has done a whois to majordomo and already has your email name which is all that I'd suggested in the first place.
And they can kiss my fat ass for all I care. As long as crypto is legal there ain't a thing they can use that list for except to deny you jobs. Look at PZ. They still haven't had the balls to have him fully arrested. Sure he's under suspicion. But how much net noise will happen if he does get jail time? How much anarchy is the NSA looking for? My gut feeling is that the second he's slammed in jail that a lot of folks will just mass export crypto just for the hell of it. Are they going to spend billions trying to investigate a few hundred thousand violations? At one point, I certainly feared their wrath, but it no longer matters. The worst they could do is throw me in jail or have me killed, both of which would eventually leak out to the media, causing far more attention to crypto and crypto usage than anything. (Now I'm under no illusions of being an important person, no ego trip for me, but I figure that if some snot nosed pirate kid gets his face all over the news for something idiotic like running a pirate ftp site, just imagine how much noise will be generated by the media when they hear that a cypherpunk was jailed for crypts...)
I will continue to do my part to try to influence the running of this country. I am not kicking back with a beer and cigar and saying that we can do nothing and I hope it all works out. We must run our own country or our country will run us.
Absolutely. Let those who fear the NSA, FBI, ??? hide if they like, but there's no need to fear the spooks. I'd bet some of them are even sympathetic to having free crypto without key surrender. Besides those who hide can infact also be productive through anon remailers. It's time to make some noise and wake up everyone we can into killing clipper.
Good luck to all and no ill will. (This list is too emotional sometimes due to the topics covered. They are beliefs and not opinions and a belief can not be changed by another person like an opinion can.)
Sure, but that's why this is not a moderated list. Anarchy does have its advantages and also its disadvantages. I'd like to do with less flame wars on here, or at least have'em taken off the list... But that's my personal belief. :-) Fight, fight, fight. encrypt, encrypt, encrypt... die clipper, die, die, die!
participants (8)
-
Adam Shostack -
Dave Otto -
deeb＠meceng.coe.neu.edu -
Ed Carp -
Jim Sewell -
Julietta -
lefty＠apple.com -
rarachel＠prism.poly.edu