PGP

> I've yet to see many people who "need" PGP who cannot pay for 
> I'm wrong, but that's how I see it. In any case, while we may 
> doubts about the patentability of mathematical algorithms, tha
> the world works. Certain property rights are reasonable. Argui
> RSADSI has no rights to a patent on public key methods is a di
> matter than arguing that someone's need and inability to pay i
> taking software.

	I think what Matt was trying to get at is that privacy should be free
The day that I feel the need to have to pay $100 to ensure that my business
is nobody's business but my own is the day I leave this country for a nice
outlet free desert island. I know that it was wrong to steal the RSA code for
a shareware alternative, but you gotta understand the stakes here:  Breaking
a patend, or keeping the government from snooping on each and everyone of us.
Sure, RSA is great, and they should get payed for their time programming, yap, 
yap, yap.  But when Salk found a vacine for Polio, did he have a little fit and
say "no!  you are all going to die because I am a greedy little bastard", no,
he made the vacine a sort of share-ware.  I know there is a great deal of 
difference between death and software, but just tell that to to the people 
involved with Inslaw(hope you are all familiar with Promis software).

> From: HARUP16@delphi.com
> I know that it was wrong to steal the RSA code for
> a shareware alternative, but [...]

Nobody stole code.  PGP infringes on (at least) U.S. Patent
4,405,829, which covers the RSA algorithm.  Personally, I have no
qualms about exponentiating in any algebra I please.

As to the question of "whether RSADSI are good guys": they
certainly could be.  However, I don't see RSA doing a hell of a lot
to promote crypto use -- the opposite, in fact.  Their software
output is hardly impressive for a corporation of a decade's
standing.  They won't sell me a license -- they'll sell it to Lotus,
but I can't see their source code.  The government hasn't banned
public-key encryption, but it's banned patent-infringing public-key
encryption.  And for practical purposes, that's the only kind there
is.  

The combined effect of present patent law and RSA's "sue first,
write code later" approach has been to stifle the development of
cryptography in this country and in the world.  Perhaps if
encryption algorithms were not encumbered, they would already be in
common use, rendering Clipper untenable.  If RSA Inc. wishes to sell
me a license I shouldn't have to buy, that would be nice.  If they
wish to show their change of heart in some other way, that would be
nice too, as long as it doesn't come with a licensing agreement like
RSAREF's.  But if they're going to continue to sit on their patents,
I'll do without their blessing.

Incidentally, I don't think the issue of algorithm patents is as
minor as some have portrayed it.  It has blocked the use of RSA,
after all, giving Clipper a window.  Furthermore, there are patents
on approximately every other cryptographic technique: PK in general,
exponential key exchange, LUC, IDEA, DigiCash, ....  Patents may gut
cryptology the way they have data compression, to pick one example.
This would be a shame.

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu

HARUP16@delphi.com says:
> 	I think what Matt was trying to get at is that privacy should be free
> The day that I feel the need to have to pay $100 to ensure that my business
> is nobody's business but my own is the day I leave this country for a nice
> outlet free desert island.

Nothing is free. Food isn't free. Clothing isn't free. Places to live
aren't free. Computers to run crypto sofware are not free. There is no
reason on earth that privacy should be free.

This is not to say that privacy needs to be expensive. However, it is
to say that we do not yet live in a communist society. People DO
deserve to get rewarded for their work if they wish to be. Phil
Zimmerman and others have very kindly donated their work to the public
-- but we should not forget that they were in no way obligated to be
as nice as they were.

.pm

Perry E. Metzger opines:
 
> HARUP16@delphi.com says:
> > 	I think what Matt was trying to get at is that privacy should be free
> > The day that I feel the need to have to pay $100 to ensure that my business
> > is nobody's business but my own is the day I leave this country for a nice
> > outlet free desert island.
 
> Nothing is free. Food isn't free. Clothing isn't free. Places to live
> aren't free. Computers to run crypto sofware are not free. There is no
> reason on earth that privacy should be free.

Sorry to get on your case yet again, Perry, but I just cannot accept that,
and I don't think anyone else here can either.  Privacy should be free, just
like freedom should be free, and the right to say what you want should be
free.  This is not to say well made tools for ENSURING these rights should 
be free.  A radio broadcasting station will sure help you exercise your
speech rights, but you aren't likely to get one for christmas.  Likewise,
crypto software should not be expected to be free, unless, as in the case
of PGP, the author makes it free of their own accord.  You are very right
that
> we should not forget that they were in no way obligated to be
> as nice as they were.

While this is true, I would urge people to keep in mind that while we can 
be expected to pay for tools to help us maintain our rights, no one can
charge us a fee for those rights themselves.  Privacy is free, it is our
birthright.
-- 
Testes saxi solidi!  **********************   Podex opacus gravedinosus est!  
Stanton McCandlish,  SysOp:  Noise in the Void Data Center BBS
IndraNet: 369:1/1      FidoNet: 1:301/2      Internet: anton@hydra.unm.edu
Snail: 8020 Central SE #405, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108 USA
Data phone: +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400 v32bis, N-8-1)
Vox phone:  +1-505-247-3402 (bps rate varies, depends on if you woke me up...:)

Stanton McCandlish writes, in response to Perry Metzger, on privacy and
free lunches:
> >[Perry says privacy isn't and shouldn't be free (Liam's summary).]
> Sorry to get on your case yet again, Perry, but I just cannot accept that,
> and I don't think anyone else here can either.

A-ha!  You've just caused me to "un-lurk," Stanton; thanks for the great
opening.

> Privacy should be free, just
> like freedom should be free, and the right to say what you want should be
> free.  This is not to say well made tools for ENSURING these rights should 
> be free.

Here you seem to be confusing the issue.  How can you say that privacy
(the right?) should be free, when defending privacy shouldn't be free? 
Can someone walk up to you and _give_ you privacy?  I always assumed you
had to be willing to go out and get it yourself, by hook or by crook. 
Without defense of a right, the right is moot.  _With_ defense of a
right, the right is moot:  In that case, you already have what you want!

I suppose I also have a "right to lunch," too, with the caveat that each
I must "ensure" my right to lunch by tripping down to MacDonald's and
buying it.  Why bother with the right?  What is free here?  The fact
that MacDonald's is open for business?  But I'm not even guaranteed that!

Are rights a useless construction?

> A radio broadcasting station will sure help you exercise your
> speech rights, but you aren't likely to get one for christmas.  Likewise,
> crypto software should not be expected to be free, unless, as in the case
> of PGP, the author makes it free of their own accord.

Well said; I agree completely.

> While this is true, I would urge people to keep in mind that while we can 
> be expected to pay for tools to help us maintain our rights, no one can
> charge us a fee for those rights themselves.  Privacy is free, it is our
> birthright.

I hope I'm not getting off list topic here on my first post, but the
"privacy is free" meme looks to be potentially damaging for us.  Perhaps
you mean, Stanton, that privacy as a commodity should not be traded for
U.S. dollars, Deutsche Mark, or Mexican Pesos, but for some other
currency?  Sweat, perhaps?  If you pay in sweat, it isn't free--you
could have paid someone else to sweat for you.  Surely this hasn't
boiled down to a question over valid currency for trade in privacy?

I think the fundamental question here is whether rights are free. 
[Whether they "should be" free doesn't mean ANYTHING; what does "should
be" mean?]  Look around; you'll see a lot of people "fighting for their
rights" to do X.  I don't think you can tell _them_ that "the right to
do X is free."

Cheers, TANSTAAFL, and I hope I haven't offended Stanton over a minor point,
Liam

P.S.  If anyone knows what rights are, mail me.  I'm extremely
interested. Don't perpetuate my possible topical error by sending it to
Cypherpunks, unless you think everyone else will be interested. (Maybe
Extropians would be...)
---
Public key available by arrangement       -- The cat is out of the bag.
Too much of a dreamer not to be practical -- Go have your own "valiant defeat."
Liam David Gray <lg2g+@andrew.cmu.edu>    -- Quote me.

> I know there is a great deal of 
> difference between death and software ....

I'd say this depends on the software.


--Mike



Mike Godwin,    |    Ariel Rose Godwin
mnemonic@eff.org|    Born 4-15-93 at 4:34 pm in Cambridge 
(617) 576-4510  |    7 pounds, 1.5 ounces, 19.75 inches long 
EFF, Cambridge  |    A new citizen of the Electronic Frontier