RE: Clipper Death Threat

-->  The first hurdle I can see now is the eye-glaze factor for John Q. 
Public.
 -->Where can  I  find  more layman-oriented  information sources?   Like 
 these
 -->sorts:
 -->
 -->1.  Simple  explanation of cryptography, *what* not  how. Maybe  a little 
on
 -->public/private keys.
 -->
 -->2.   Why laymen, corporations, etc.  need access to strong encryption. 
 Good
 -->analogies are  needed here.  (e.g., wireless  telecom is easily 
compromised,
 -->etc.)
 -->

Corporate espionage is very common in todays business world.  This is very 
well known and documented in the press.  If I was the head of a corporation, 
I would be VERY interested in encryption technology in order to safeguard my 
corporate interests.

For individuals, it's sorta like the difference between standard snail mail 
envelopes and post cards.  The post card can be read by anyone whom the card 
passes, while an envelope makes the message inside somewhat private.  (I.E. 
it takes law enforcement to legally open the message)  While this only works 
on a very basic level to explain to a lay-person, perhaps it is a way for 
them to begin to understand.

Another way of looking at it is the difference between private phone lines 
like we have today (yes, I know, not TRUELY private, but you get the point) 
and party lines of old.


 -->3.  Why we have a right to strong encryption.

Actually, our constitution does not say we have the right to private 
communication.  It would be nice, but it's not a right.

 -->
 -->4.  How the Clipper implementation infringes on our rights.

See #3 above.  Clipper is just plain a bad idea.  Unfortunately, I suspect 
everyone's a bit late on this one.  Newspapers have already written about a 
huge purchase by several large government agencies of technology with the 
chip in place.

Funny thing is, it may end up being only our govenment who's security is 
comprimised by this action, since no one else wants anything to do with it. 
 Especially after the current mole uncovering, I begin to wonder if it's yet 
more moles who are pushing this technology forward.  After all, if there is 
a backdoor, you KNOW every country in the world will try to get in.  Of 
course, this defeats the entire purpose of security.

On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, LYLE, DAVID R. COMPEX wrote:

>. . . 
> 
>  -->3.  Why we have a right to strong encryption. 
> 
> Actually, our constitution does not say we have the right to private 
> communication.  It would be nice, but it's not a right. 
> 

Try the 9th Amendment on for size:

"The enumeration in the Costitution, of certain rights, shall not be 
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Privacy was a long recognized right in Anglo-American juris prudence.  It 
goes all the way back to the very English idea that "a man's home is his 
castle."


 S a n d y

> On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, LYLE, DAVID R. COMPEX wrote:
> 
> >. . . 
> > 
> >  -->3.  Why we have a right to strong encryption. 
> > 
> > Actually, our constitution does not say we have the right to private 
> > communication.  It would be nice, but it's not a right. 

The Supreme Court disagrees with David in cases ranging from 
NAACP v. Alabama to Griswold v. Connecticut.


--Mike