The bookburning begins...

[F. Marc de Piolenc]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Yet another cypherpunk idiocy, the idea that the government is scurrying
> about trying to get information on cryptography out of libraries.  A
> good example of the narrow focus and lack of reasoning on the part of
> cypherpunks.
> 
> The government is trying to make it harder to get sensitive information
> related to infrastructure vulnerabilities.  It has no interest in
> suppressing information on a widely used technology like crypto.
> You might as well predict that they will pull all the books about the
> internet off library shelves in order to try to improve network security.

Your point is extensible to ALL categories of information - namely that
removing them from depositories is futile if your goal is to fight
terrorism. That applies equally well to infrastructure data, data on
making explosives, microorganic culture, etc...no? That won't prevent a
panic-stricken bureaucrat from trying. I would be very much surprised if
government documents on cryptography - especially those including
vulnerability assessments of currently deployed systems - were pulled,
or at least nominated for removal. I just hope that some libraries, at
least, take a principled stand against this nonsense.

> And by the way, Marc de Piolenc, what happened to your assignment about
> using Chaumian credentials to improve air travel security?  You were
> given the favor of pointers to Chaum's papers; you were expected to
> provide something back in return, quid pro quo.  Why don't you work on
> that instead of inflicting unfounded opinions on the group?

Been there, tried that. I cannot see any way that Chaumian credentials
can enhance air travel security. The problem, as I understand it, is
that credentials (if they work perfectly) establish a POSITIVE link
between a given person and his/her attainments (this person has passed a
course of flight training, this person has a million bucks in the bank).
They cannot provide verification of negative propositions (this person
has never been criminally insane, this person has never plotted to blow
up an airliner), which would be crucial to a purely data-based security
system. Having worked the security racket (albeit not for airlines or
the FAA) for some 26 years, I must say that I can't imagine any purely
data-based system working against terrorism, or any other serious crime
for that matter.

I would have posted earlier to that effect, except that others on the
list had already expressed exactly this thought, so I assumed that your
"assignment" was a jab at what you felt was an irrelevant question.

Marc de Piolenc
Mindanao