At 03:01 PM 10/22/96 +0200, Alex de Joode wrote:

Bert-Jaap Koops (E.J.Koops@kub.nl) wrote: : Jim Bell wrote: : [many things on "fraud"]

: Excuse me if I don't react on this in detail. We have already : explained it, and there it stands: fraud means playing a game without : abiding by its rules. It's perfectly legitimate to establish a game : and to introduse rules of the game with it. If you want to play the : game, play by its rules, otherwise don't play it. If you play it : while cheating, though, you must bear the consequences ("go directly : to jail" ;-).

: Bert-Jaap

What Mr. Bell probably means is that 'if the powers that be' decide to unilateraly change the rules, you are lost in limbo.

That's certainly one of my points. There is a concept in data theory called "Hamming distance," which is basically the number of steps it takes to go from "here" to "there." If we're excessively generous and call the countries we live in "free," the question is how much effort is required to move that country to a totalitarian system. If everyone uses encrypted telephones whose codes can't be broken, with no GAK-misfeature, the government can't easily force everyone to change to a situation where everyone fears being wiretapped. Assume a typical GAK system however, and there's apparently nothing to prevent things from going from free to unfree literally overnight. I've asked Koops to explain how he can help prevent fraud _by_ the government; he's silent on this point. I have to conclude that he doesn't consider that to be an issue. I think it's a big issue.

The notion that 'the powers that be' can be relied opun is seriously flawed, for example take in account some of the dealings of our own guvment, the abolishing of the WIR -overnight-, the proposals of Vermeent that totally neglected art. 1 WvSr.

Basicly 'fraud' is a definition that benefits 'the powers that be', one that seriously harms our rights and liberties. You also state "If you want to play the game, play by its rules, otherwise don't play it." Well sometimes people have no other option then to play, and dropping out if gouvernment changes the rules unilateraly can be to costly an option ..

One of the things that Koops has repeated failed to do is to show how his invention would actually be desired by the users, enough to implement it. Why, exactly, would a person adopt a system like it? To whatever extent his system is a "solution in search of a problem," he needs to show what kind of problems would need that solution, and would it work? Why would a person participate in any sort of cooperative effort that might, hypothetically, make him guilty of "fraud"? Only because he's getting some benefit. I don't totally reject the possibility that a group of people might willingly set up some sort of shadow-Internet network possibly with better performance, agreeing among themselves to restrict encrypted communications to some type of GAK system, but it's necessary to ask what the benefit would be in doing this. Or, more particularly, why couldn't they set up the same network without any such agreement? Proposals like those of Mr. Koops will always fail if people can get benefits without agreeing to the costs, and it's clear that there are no strong reasons to adopt a mutually-agreed GAK-type system without some sort of external coercion. (Either bribing such an organization with money based on funds stolen from taxpayers, or punishing everyone who doesn't agree with higher taxes, or both.) This means that Koops' proposal is inextricably linked to government extortion, which is why we challenge it. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com