Criminalizing crypto criticism

[Tim May]

At 12:14 PM -0700 8/1/01, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote:
>I keep seeing words like "bona fide" and "legitimate" used as modifiers
>for "cryptographic researcher." The DMCA states :
>
>(3)(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is
>employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of
>encryption technology; and
>
>Isn't self-taught a legitimate course of study? Abraham Lincoln was
>largely self-taught. If a teenager, who has clearly not had the
>opportunity to amass much in the way of official credentials, can break
>CSS hasn't he "engaged in a legitimate course of study" and isn't he
>"appropriately experienced in the field of encryption technology?"

It's part of the credentialling of rights. See my earlier post on 
Official Reporters, Official Thisandthat.

It gives one more piece of ammo for someone going after J. Random 
Cryptographer. Shifts the burden a bit more to J. Random to "prove" 
that he should be due the rights given to Approved Cryptographers. 
(Like many rent-seekers, expect professional organizations to use 
membership in their organization as one of the litmus tests. IACR may 
see a surge in membership.)

>The modifiers are meaningless as is 3B.
>
>Why do we even discuss the damn thing. It's just another rathole to dive
>into. It's wrong. We know it's wrong. Short of nuclear blackmail
>Congress will not change it and the courts will not overturn it. I'll
>let the lawyers and those with deep pockets fight that battle. About the
>only good I might be able to do is to contribute to enhancing the means
>for people to exchange and distribute proscribed information with
>impunity.

As we've known for many years, the gubment can throw more legal cases 
out there than "the community" can raise money for. Several years ago 
it was the crypto export brouhaha (which still hasn't gotten 
noticeably easier, say my corporate contacts). And the Online Decency 
nonsense. The government pays their people to put cases out  there, 
causing the lobbying orgs to beg for donations.

The latest is the DMCA. I was talking to an online advocacy guy 
recently and he was telling me they figure they need $2 million to 
defend/handle the Dimitry case. This even with Adobe dropping out out 
of cowardice at what they've wrought.

I shrugged and said "Good luck." Maybe he thought I'd contribute....

All I can think of when I hear about these cases is how _far_ $2 
million would go toward making available a lot of robust Mixmaster 
(hopefully beyond Type II) remailers, the deployment of SWAN and 
other "crypto by default" pipes, and similar "trust in the laws of 
mathematics and not the laws of men" approaches. A $2 million project 
to deploy a system of digital cash-paid remailers would be exciting. 
$2 million to defend a Russian is not. Even if Dimitry is released, 
the Copyright Establishment is _not_ going to back off. (Besides 
Adobe, there are even more draconian moves from the satellite t.v. 
people. Will online advocacy groups spend even more millions 
defending the dish hackers? And so on, in a neverending cascade of 
major pitched battles.)

(And, yes, I invest my money in some of these technological 
approaches. I guess I'd better stop hinting at what these investments 
are, lest BU be correct that merely building in ways to bypass Big 
Brother is "spoliation.")

--Tim May
-- 
Timothy C. May         tcmay at got.net        Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns