So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?

[Black Unicorn]

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 at 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 at pacifier.com
> 

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn at 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