old encryption paper
What were you doing on 9/11? I was in the act of packaging our first build of GnuPG for the Distribution when the planes hit. It took me a couple of days to clear my head abit and write the GNU-Darwin encryption position paper. When a drumbeat for post-9/11 encryption bans started in the US Congress the very day after the attack, I wrote faster and got help from smart people on the "Free Dmitry" list and elsewhere. Any remarks about any of this? http://www.gnu-darwin.org/war.html IMHO, it is exactly this kind of commentary which scuttled an attack on free encryption software in the wake of the attack. Moreover, the monolith authentication schemes were also laid to rest or driven underground, despite the fact that certain profiteering vendor/stakeholders had inside access in Washington. It might have been a very different Internet today. Most of the commentary about the paper has been positive, except for some criticism of pursuing private keys with warrants. Gosh, I think my head was not as clear as I thought on that point, a fact that time and experience has fortunately remedied. ;-} Anyway, all comments welcome. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBOULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:33:37PM -0400, proclus@gnu-darwin.org wrote:
IMHO, it is exactly this kind of commentary which scuttled an attack on free encryption software in the wake of the attack. Moreover, the monolith authentication schemes were also laid to rest or driven
Well, no. This kind of commentary made folks on mailing lists like these feel warm and fuzzy and made some other tech types realize what was at stake. But Sen. Judd Gregg's proposal failed because of lack of support from his colleagues and opposition from well-connected industry lobbyists, not people writing about "GNU-Darwin" (probably not one congresscritter knows what that means anyway, or cares). -Declan
On 22 Jul, Declan McCullagh wrote: Well, no. This kind of commentary made folks on mailing lists like
these feel warm and fuzzy and made some other tech types realize what was at stake. But Sen. Judd Gregg's proposal failed because of lack of support from his colleagues and opposition from well-connected industry lobbyists,
What kind of argument do you think was used by the senator's colleagues and industry lobbyists in order to defeat the proposal?
not people writing about "GNU-Darwin" (probably not one congresscritter knows what that means anyway, or cares).
Clearly, if you had read the paper, then you would know that it is about encryption and authentication, and only tangentially GNU-Darwin, which is mentioned for credibility and example purposes. One also wonders if your assessment of the Washington events surrounding the post-911 encryption proposals is complete or accurate. It appears to me that the White House was unwilling to expend political capital on the authentication schemes of the profiteers, which were contrary to the national security interests. Presumably the congress was swayed by similar arguments in the days following the 911 attacks. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
-Declan
-- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBOULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
participants (2)
-
Declan McCullagh -
proclus＠gnu-darwin.org