Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
At 02:06 PM 4/5/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 sameer@c2.org wrote:
What's the point here, or is Unicorn just having fun lambasting Jim Bell?
My basic attitude, running an internet privacy provider, is if Mr. Govt. wants my data, and gives me a court order (subpoena, "compelled discovery", whatever), then I'll give it to 'em. If my customers that they were looking for had any brains at all, a court order, compelled discover, whatever, will not help Mr. Govt. That's the cornerstone of my security model.
Or am I confused about what you are talking about here.
Yours seems to be about the most aggressive policy a ISP provider can take and expect to remain in business.
This is a classic defeatist attitude, the one that Unicorn specializes in. He wants us to believe that there is literally NOTHING that anyone can possibly do to solve the "government problem." I contend that had he talked to Phillip Zimmermann in 1990 or so, he would have told Zimmermann that "It's illegal to write an encryption program using RSA, because it's patented! You'll never get away with it!" But history records that Zimmermann _did_, and he "got away with it." What I'm advocating is that people do what Zimmermann did: Write programs that will extend the usages of encryption to thwart attempts to retrieve data by its owners, whether or not the data is on the owner's system.
That is, resist by what legal means are available, but ultimately depend on the user to secure his or her own data.
Notice that Unicorn never gives useful specific suggestions about which "legal means are available."
Where I differ with Mr. Bell is that he seems to think the ISPs of the world are going to rise and unite to quash the oppressive hand of big government at their own expense in order to satisify some sense of personal ethics or customer goodwill.
Cumulatively, they could do exactly this. Spread among most ISP's, the cost per ISP could be quite low. Augmented with my AsPol idea, the costs would be even lower. What was that quote? "A box of shells is cheaper than an appeal." Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 02:06 PM 4/5/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 sameer@c2.org wrote:
What's the point here, or is Unicorn just having fun lambasting Jim Bell?
My basic attitude, running an internet privacy provider, is if Mr. Govt. wants my data, and gives me a court order (subpoena, "compelled discovery", whatever), then I'll give it to 'em. If my customers that they were looking for had any brains at all, a court order, compelled discover, whatever, will not help Mr. Govt. That's the cornerstone of my security model.
Or am I confused about what you are talking about here.
Yours seems to be about the most aggressive policy a ISP provider can take and expect to remain in business.
This is a classic defeatist attitude, the one that Unicorn specializes in. He wants us to believe that there is literally NOTHING that anyone can possibly do to solve the "government problem."
No, it is a classic lawyer's attitude. "If you do this, these are the risks."
I contend that had he talked to Phillip Zimmermann in 1990 or so, he would have told Zimmermann that "It's illegal to write an encryption program using RSA, because it's patented! You'll never get away with it!"
I would have indicated that "you're going to face the prospect of intellectual property litigation, and that can get nasty in the extreme."
But history records that Zimmermann _did_, and he "got away with it."
A combination of politics and law and timing. If you're asking me to be a fortune teller, as so many people ask lawyers to do, you're asking too much.
What I'm advocating is that people do what Zimmermann did: Write programs that will extend the usages of encryption to thwart attempts to retrieve data by its owners, whether or not the data is on the owner's system.
This in itself I have never had a problem with. I have called for as much myself many times.
That is, resist by what legal means are available, but ultimately depend on the user to secure his or her own data.
Notice that Unicorn never gives useful specific suggestions about which "legal means are available."
Notice that there are no checks in my mailbox from Mr. Bell.
Where I differ with Mr. Bell is that he seems to think the ISPs of the world are going to rise and unite to quash the oppressive hand of big government at their own expense in order to satisify some sense of personal ethics or customer goodwill.
Cumulatively, they could do exactly this. Spread among most ISP's, the cost per ISP could be quite low.
Provided you could get "most" ISP's to sign on, provided that the insurance provided for the very expensive proposition of seizure of ISP equipment, and provided that this be the first insurance entity ever with a stated policy of paying off policyholder for criminal sanctions which were directly the result of overt illegal acts by the policyholder. I'm not saying it's impossible. Well, I'm almost saying it's impossible.
Augmented with my AsPol idea, the costs would be even lower. What was that quote? "A box of shells is cheaper than an appeal."
Yadda yadda yadda
Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
--- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
participants (2)
-
Black Unicorn -
jim bell