Tim May <tcmay@got.net> rejected reports of D. Denning's change of heart:

And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled repudiation of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional grounds, but only on the grounds that her study did not show that many criminal cases were much affected by the lack of key escrow.

So what if they had?

(Insert usual arguments here about how many consitutionally-protected rights affect criminal investigations, but that this is no reason to ban window shades, locks on doors, whispering, etc.)

Denning and her allies can always support GAK in the future, when "new studies indicate that law enforcement is being severely hampered by the growing menace of unbreakable cryptography."

I never trust utilitarian arguments on things of this importance.

To note the obvious, the Constitutional argument cuts both ways, with warranted access to "private papers," versus the Founding Fathers' proto-privacy and their rude distrust of federal power. (It's kind of like the abortion debate, where the premise you start off with almost dictates which conclusion you arrive at, many steps later.) Denning's pragmatic, utilitarian, arguments are useful, but I suggest they mask a deeper shift of primacy among competing principles. Utilitarian arguments are historically (even in C'punks;-) used to defend a pre-defined philosophical position. (And anyone who thinks that it would have been hard to tilt the Denning/Baugh study with reports of crypto use by drug cartels and distributors, even within the US, is just out of touch.) Of course, crypto has (and will in the future) muck up criminal investigations! On the evidence her comments over the past four months, I think it is clear Prof. Denning has had some profound second thoughts about ultimate cultural values and the balance of power between the state and the individual. (Make your appointment, Declan! When Dorothy is ready to talk about this, it will be _very_ interesting.) Denning, like many on the other side, is smart & idealistic. This study and other recent statements have her overtly balking at being herded along the pro-GAK path... at the very time the US LEA chiefs are twisting every arm they can to demonize free access to strong crypto. That proves her to be thoughtful as well. Not many standard-bearers cross from one side to the other in this debate. Dennings refusal to offer rote support for the LEAs now is itself a major event in this debate, with significant implications in Congress. For players who operate at the level Denning has worked, I have a gut sense that the international issues -- the multi-cultural, multi-national, Merchantile side of the debate -- are often much more important than they have been in the Stateside discussion, such as it is. Restructuring world commerce around "licenses" from various national spy organizations is a disconcerting prospect for many, with widely-varied political identities. Also, Denning's middle-class trust in American government agencies doesn't have a direct parallel in European political culture -- and once people notice that, the contrasting views of the state are often disconcerting. (Most countries, even in Europe, vividly recall foreign occupation -- which gives a notable tweak to presumptions of bureaucratic Virtue.) Dorothy Denning will never march under a Libertarian flag, but neither will I. There are other banners which are on the same side of the barricades, guys. No need to shoot all your allies until after the Revolution. And, if we win it together, you may need a consensus before anyone shoots anyone, AP notwithstanding;-) Suerte, _Vin "Cryptography is like literacy in the Dark Ages. Infinitely potent, for good and ill... yet basically an intellectual construct, an idea, which by its nature will resist efforts to restrict it to bureaucrats and others who deem only themselves worthy of such Privilege." _ A thinking man's Creed for Crypto/ vbm. * Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin@shore.net> * 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

At 9:54 AM -0700 7/31/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <v03007803b0067a1a1c9e@[168.161.105.191]>, on 07/31/97 at 01:22 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> said:

...

BTW, Will R did a piece a month or so ago on Denning's shifting stance. Maybe I should call her up and press her for details.

Well after that piece was done I recall he making statments supporting some of the more Daconian bills floating around DC.

I serriously doubt that she has changed here stance on any of the current Inet issuse mearly putting a different spin on them.

And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled repudiation of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional grounds, but only on the grounds that her study did not show that many criminal cases were much affected by the lack of key escrow. So what if they had? (Insert usual arguments here about how many consitutionally-protected rights affect criminal investigations, but that this is no reason to ban window shades, locks on doors, whispering, etc.) Denning and her allies can always support GAK in the future, when "new studies indicate that law enforcement is being severely hampered by the growing menace of unbreakable cryptography." I never trust utilitarian arguments on things of this importance. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May writes:

...

And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled repudiation of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional grounds, but only on the grounds that her study did not show that many criminal cases were much affected by the lack of key escrow.

That's fine - if we wanted people to oppose crypto-censorship on moral or political grounds, we could ask the ACLU or EFF or CypherpunkCabal. Professor Denning's position has never been that eavesdropping and key escrow are required on the grounds of principle - it's Louis Freeh's job to say "we can't go upsetting Law Enforcement's traditional ability to eavesdrop on you, that'd be UnAmerican". Her important contributions to the Bad Guys' position has been to say that "Law enforcement needs your keys because there's no practical alternative", which reinforces the FBI's and NSA's arguments. Now that she's saying "Law enforcement doesn't really need your keys, they're doing just fine without them, even in spite of all the insider talks they've given me" that knocks the utilitarian leg out from under them. That's very good. Won't stop the Bad Guys from trying, of course, but it's a good start. On the other hand, it'll probably provide extra ammunition for the current "legalize exports but criminalize use of crypto in crime" bills, which gives the government more power than they've had before domestically at the cost of losing the export battle which they were losing anyway. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

Tim May writes:

At 9:54 AM -0700 7/31/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <v03007803b0067a1a1c9e@[168.161.105.191]>, on 07/31/97 at 01:22 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> said:

...

BTW, Will R did a piece a month or so ago on Denning's shifting stance. Maybe I should call her up and press her for details.

Well after that piece was done I recall he making statments supporting some of the more Daconian bills floating around DC.

I serriously doubt that she has changed here stance on any of the current Inet issuse mearly putting a different spin on them.

And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled repudiation of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional grounds, but only on the grounds that her study did not show that many criminal cases were much affected by the lack of key escrow.

Her support for GAK was also on 'utilitarian' grounds- she beleived law enforcement's claims that crypto prevented them from catching criminals. This new study sounds like it pokes large holes in Freeh etc's main justification of GAK. That's just fine with me. Ms Denning may change her mind again later, but this is useful right now. Especially since Denning was the only respected cryptographer who sided with GAK.

I never trust utilitarian arguments on things of this importance.

Others do, especially those "driven to compromise" folk up on the hill in Washington. Yea, it'd be great if she suddenly got religion and started upholding the constitution, but this is still better than I would have hoped for. -- Eric Murray ericm@lne.com ericm@nabletech.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

Tim May writes:

* Next year's report finds solid evidence that crypto is being used to hinder investigations, and has indeed had an effect.

This is obviously the strategy here. If we lend credibility to the examination of chicken entrails because the Sorcerer is saying something we agree with, then we are powerless to denounce the process as flim-flam when we wake up one morning and find ourselves no longer in the Sorcerer's graces. Similarly, if we buy into the notion that national crypto policy should be dictated by the needs of law enforcement, instead of fundamental Constitutional considerations, because law enforcement is purring and courting our favor, then it is only a matter of time before we find that we have stupidly oiled the very machinery which will be used for our beheading. As Tim says, stick with Constitutional arguments, not utilitarian ones, and beware of Wise Persons from the East bearing Gifts. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch@zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}

On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Eric Murray wrote:

Her support for GAK was also on 'utilitarian' grounds- she beleived law enforcement's claims that crypto prevented them from catching criminals.

This new study sounds like it pokes large holes in Freeh etc's main justification of GAK. That's just fine with me. Ms Denning may change her mind again later, but this is useful right now. Especially since Denning was the only respected cryptographer who sided with GAK.

It serves only to prove two points: a. She's a government mouthpiece interested only in what will serve big brother. She will support whatever they are willing to. Her backing off only shows their admittance that GAK isn't going to bring any ROI. b. GAK is stupid and they're admiting it. (Placing back doors is doubly stupid because someone other than the TLA's might find their way and break open the whole thing if it's done as a back door, or someone will be bribed to release the escrowed keys.) I offer the above as points because of all the recent exports of 128 bit cyphers being allowed. (It is possible they've other limitations they're not allowed to tell us about such as the same string being encrypted in all communications, or limits on PRNG's, but we don't know yet.) The side note that Freeh supports GAK, but she doesn't only shows that they speak for different agencies. We know which one Freeh speaks for, we believe we know who she speaks for. If the whole point of GAK is to catch stupid criminals anyway, it will lose. The only criminals that aren't going to be caught are the smart ones. We've argued this with her for years, but she's stuck to her party line, and all of a sudden she changes the party line. People don't change their minds without reason, and an NSA mouth piece isn't likely to defect and live to talk about it or reverse their position publically. This might add some weight to the recent "leak" about the NSA being able to break 128 bit cyphers in 30 minutes, then again who really knows? Could be conspiracy theories, or FUD. IMHO this is bullshit unless they've a working quantum computer... (Still, maybe it's time to push the envelope again just to be sure. Anyone have a 256 bit version of IDEA? or shall we go the 3DES way and produce 3IDEA? :)

Yea, it'd be great if she suddenly got religion and started upholding the constitution, but this is still better than I would have hoped for.

Ha! As likely as Dr. Vulis having tea and crumpets with Tim in a London tea house and talking about how lovely the weather is. :) I saw her speak a while back on these issues here in NYC... I've got a tape of it, but haven't had a chance to transcribe it yet. Believe me, she doesn't have "religion," she doesn't give a rats ass about the Constitution. IMHO, she's wearing sheep's clothing and bleeting, but them fangs are still there, and sharp as ever. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@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 ==========================