Cpunks Lauded

[Tim May]

On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 10:52 PM, John Young wrote:

> A local NYC TV show, The Digital Age, today had David
> Kahn and Steve Levy discussing crypto, bin Laden and
> 911 with the show's host, James Goodale, former
> vice-chairman of the New York Times.
> ...
>
> David reaffirmed his belief that key escrow would have
> been best for the country's security, but now it was no
> longer possible. (We heard David state that a few years
> back at a crypto conference in NYC.)

It's useful to look at the subtext here: the Clipper debate of 1994 was 
about a particular type of secure phone, the AT&T/Mykotronx 
Clipper-enabled phone. It was not mandated to replace other systems 
owned by civilians.

(Yes, a lot of us saw the ruse: phase in Clipper and then, down the 
road, outlaw non-escrowed systems. This is why I call Kahn's comments 
the "subtext.")

Me, I have no problem with people buying key escrow systems.

But if they hold a gun to my head and say that I cannot write or speak 
in the language of my choosing, that I cannot whisper to others, that I 
must make my conversations "understandable" to wiretappers, then they 
have earned killing.

"Let me understand this...you have come to my house to tell me that I am 
a criminal facing 20-to-life if I continue to write in my journal in a 
language you have no key to decipher?"

Much is being made of the "new bluntness" in Washington: "Wanted, dead 
or alive." "We want Osama dead."

The same applies to statists: fuck with constitutional rights and you 
face killing. Singly or en masse. Execution of entire buildings is 
sometimes justified. Washington, D.C. is long overdue for "termination 
with extreme prejudice."

(Those who are not criminals have had many years to realize this and to 
get the hell out of Dodge.)

The new bluntness.

>
> David was emphatic that public key cryptography is the
> single most important invention in the entire history of
> cryptography. Diffie and Hellman were cited, but not
> the British predecessors.

Their "predecessors" were only predecessors in time, not in intellectual 
influence or in any causal sense. And their "predecessors" did not 
contribute the rich set of contributions that Diffie, Hellman, Merkle, 
Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman have contributed.

In fact, we don't even fully know if these "predecessors" fully realized 
what they had (allegedly) discovered. Further, given that they were not 
participating in the larger world in the way that Diffie et. al. were, 
we don't even know where they got their ideas...perhaps from 
"predecessors of the predecessors."

Those who toiled in secrecy have earned the fame that they will never 
have.

--Tim May
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any 
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to 
others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient 
warrant." --John Stuart Mill