No Subject

I simply had to pass this article along to c'punks...


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: milles@fi.gs.com (Stevens Miller)
Subject: NSA remarks at "Lawyers and the Internet"
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:04:33 GMT

I'm a computer programmer and attorney who is a member of the Committee
on Technology and the Practice of Law, a task force assembled by the
Association of the Bar of the City of New York.  Last Friday we held a
conference on "Lawyers and the Internet."  Approximately 200 lawyers
attended.

Speaking in favor of the Clipper proposal was Stuart Baker of the NSA.
I won't repeat his substantial arguments, but his formal approach (which
Mike Godwin tells me is becoming a standard component of the government's
pro-Clipper road show) is worth some attention.  Parroting his own words
at CFP, Baker told us:

- The debate over the Clipper proposal is "really just a culture clash
among net-heads."

- Those opposing the proposal are late-coming counter-culturists, "who
couldn't go to Woodstock because they had to do their trig homework."

- Opponents envision themselves as would-be "cybernauts in bandoliers and
pocket-protectors."

I quote these remarks (as best I can from memory; my hands were shaking too
much to write clearly at this point) to make it clear that our government's
representative has reached a conclusion about the community opposing its
plan.  He has concluded that the members of that community are so beneath
his respect that it is more appropriate to make fun of them than it is to
respond to their views.  As Godwin pointed out later, the NSA really just
doesn't care what anyone says.  That, he said, is why Baker repeatedly invokes
the spectre of child-molestation as the chief evil Clipper will prevent; by
that invocation is much meritorious debate deflected.  Baker replied to this
by emphasizing the reality of the pedophilia potential of networks, telling
us that many users of networks "are teenaged boys with inept social skills."

Regardless of the law-enforcement potential of this plan, it is worth noting
that an official spokesman for the government endorses it by pointing out
that its opponents valued their studies more highly than they did rock and roll.
That because the popular image of the bookworm can be juxtaposed against that
of Rambo in a funny way, bookworms don't have to be taken seriously.

That if you play with computers as a youngster, your community, your parents
and your own brain can't save you.  That the government must protect you
from your own ineptitude, whether you want its help or not.

The message was pretty clear:  Stuart Baker doesn't care what you say, but he
wants the power to listen.

---
Stevens R. Miller			|"The complete truth is not the
(212) 227-1594				| prerogative of the human judge."
sharp@echonyc.com			|
New York, New York			| - Supreme Court of Israel

>- The debate over the Clipper proposal is "really just a culture clash
>among net-heads."

>- Those opposing the proposal are late-coming counter-culturists, "who
>couldn't go to Woodstock because they had to do their trig homework."

FWIW, these are recycled jokes.  He used exactly the same lines at
CFP-94.

Eric

Stevens Miller wrote:

> I simply had to pass this article along to c'punks...

> 
> I'm a computer programmer and attorney who is a member of the Committee
> on Technology and the Practice of Law, a task force assembled by the
> Association of the Bar of the City of New York.  Last Friday we held a
> conference on "Lawyers and the Internet."  Approximately 200 lawyers
> attended.
> 
> Speaking in favor of the Clipper proposal was Stuart Baker of the NSA.
(Stuart said:) 
> - The debate over the Clipper proposal is "really just a culture clash
> among net-heads."

> - Those opposing the proposal are late-coming counter-culturists, "who
> couldn't go to Woodstock because they had to do their trig homework."
> 
> - Opponents envision themselves as would-be "cybernauts in bandoliers and
> pocket-protectors."
> 
  He has concluded that the members of that community are so beneath
> his respect that it is more appropriate to make fun of them tha..
  
> users of networks "are teenaged boys with inept social skills."

> That because the popular image of the bookworm can be juxtaposed against that
> of Rambo in a funny way, bookworms don't have to be taken seriously.
> 
> That if you play with computers as a youngster, your community, your parents
> and your own brain can't save you.  That the government must protect you
> from your own ineptitude, whether you want its help or not.

	What a great letter! And what a sorry and inaccurate statement this
Stuart Baker has made regarding the Net. Not only is it not peopled solely
by "teenage boys with inept social skills"- the National Information
Highway is gearing up to be in every home, school, hospital, etc in
America.  By trying to pin the anti- Clipper campaign against a group of
young renegade computer hackers, Baker is trying to reduce the credibility
of the arguement against Clipper as a serious threat to our rights  by showing
that only a few, marginalized "punk" kids are opposing this issue. The NSA
is launching a smear campaign, obviously, to discredit those in opposition
to its grand scheme of being able to listen to every supposedly private
phone and data transmission in America. By marginalizing the opposition in
this way, the NSA hopes to gain the trust and backing of the mainstream,
who have bought the Image of the Net as some kind of haven for computer
hackers.
	We obviously need to respond to this sort of tactic with some P.R.
work of our own. By utilizing some of the analogies which the average
person can understand, we can try to combat this serious threat to our
right to privacy. Perhaps we need to make a concerted effort to get more
articles published in mainstream magazines regarding this issue. I am
currently completing a piece on computer surveillance and privacy issues-
perhaps this summer I can put something together for the mainstream media.
I am sure that plenty of you all can write- we should make sure the word
gets out to the masses reagrding the true nature of the Net and regarding
the Clipper isssue in particular, now that we know what tactic the NSA is 
going to take.

Ciao for now,

Julie

"I am not a teenaged boy" :)

__________________________________________________________________________
Julie M. Albright
Ph.D Student
Department of Sociology
University of Southern California
albright@usc.edu

<In mail Julietta said:>
> 
> Stevens Miller wrote:
  [ Stuart Baker's (of the NSA) comments deleted ]

> 	We obviously need to respond to this sort of tactic with some P.R.
> work of our own. 

> I am sure that plenty of you all can write- we should make sure the word
> gets out to the masses reagrding the true nature of the Net and regarding
> the Clipper isssue in particular, now that we know what tactic the NSA is 
> going to take.

 I agree with Julie that we need some P.R. for this.  I also think we
 should do it by writing and getting the word out.  

 However, I think we should form a small informal group of people seriously
 interested in putting together a well thought out document that is factual
 and without emotional flair that a member of the press would respect, could
 understand, and might pass on to the public.

 I want to propose that this small group develop a document to the best of
 their abilities, refine it, and when they think it is ready post it to the
 list for a "final lookover".

 I am willing to organize the initial document work if there is interest.
 If you think you'd like to help with the first stages of this "PR Kit"
 please contact me via email.  If there is sufficient interest I will let
 the rest of the list know and we can communicate via email to keep the
 list traffic down at first.  When we have it's first form then everyone
 on the list will have a chance to comment before it is mailed out.  If
 you think this is a good idea and want to help then let me know.  ALSO,
 if you just think this is a good idea but would rather not help build
 the initial document, let me know anyway so I can gauge interest in it.


 While I applaud the efforts of Jeff Davis with his mass mailings I feel
 a newsperson might be tempted to dismiss him offhand since he is one 
 person.  If this is put together by the group and we let the press know
 we are programmers, lawyers, physicists, real estate salespeople, etc.
 etc. etc. and include the name (email address/pseudonym/etc) of anyone
 on the list who wishes to be named then we will have a better chance of
 being taken seriously.

 Let me know what you think,
	 Jim
-- 
 Tantalus Inc.			Jim Sewell      Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ
 P.O. Box 2310		    Programmer           Internet: jims@mpgn.com
 Key West, FL 33045	    C-Unix-PC          Compu$erve: 71061,1027
 (305)293-8100 						     PGP via email on request. 
 1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3  C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73

On Apr 28,  9:31, Jim Sewell wrote:
>  ...
>  I agree with Julie that we need some P.R. for this.  I also think we
>  should do it by writing and getting the word out.

Jolly good idea... the more signatures the better.

-- 
 gerald.r.martinez@att.com  /  grmartinez@attmail.att.com  /  att!drmail!grm
 @ AT&T GBCS Bell Labs, Denver  (303) 538-1338
 @ WWW: http://info.dr.att.com/hypertext/people/grm.html
 & life is a cabernet						...o&o )))

I have met a few NSA employees and contractors from time to time, and
they've all generally impressed me as intelligent and reasonable
people who just happen to work for a bad institution -- except Baker.
He *is* that bad institution.

I had the dubious pleasure of meeting Baker in person a year ago
during a CPSR-sponsored conference in DC. I had argued vigorously with
him during a break before I realized that he was NSA's general
counsel; afterwards, I realized that if I didn't have a file with them
before, I certainly would later. :-)

I argued that the bad guys would have strong cryptography no matter
what laws were passed, so we might as well make sure the good guys
could have it too. His retort, repeated quite a few times, was, "So,
your attitude toward the government is "Fuck 'em if they can't take a
joke?" It wasn't exactly a reasoned, logical debate.

One of the most arrogant people I've ever met. He would have been
right at home in the old Nixon White House.

But then again, I keep remembering the rule: don't get mad, get even.
Write code...

Phil

> I had the dubious pleasure of meeting Baker in person a year ago
> during a CPSR-sponsored conference in DC. I had argued vigorously with
> him during a break before I realized that he was NSA's general
> counsel; afterwards, I realized that if I didn't have a file with them
> before, I certainly would later. :-)
> 
> I argued that the bad guys would have strong cryptography no matter
> what laws were passed, so we might as well make sure the good guys
> could have it too. His retort, repeated quite a few times, was, "So,
> your attitude toward the government is "Fuck 'em if they can't take a
> joke?" It wasn't exactly a reasoned, logical debate.

maybe he's a subgenius.  [note to whichever nsa employee is reading
this: check out the book of the subgenius for more info on this.  it's
really good reading, anyway.]

about the bad guys getting strong crypto:

let's review the des story for a moment, keeping in mind that clipper
in the 90s may be a repeat of des in the 70s:

des came out of the lucifer project at ibm in the early 70s and was
adopted as a standard in 1976.  at the time it was published, the
design criteria of the s-boxes were classified, and this worried many
people.  everyone suspected that the nsa had hidden a backdoor of some
kind in the s-boxes.  the truth behind the s-boxes finally came out in
1990 when biham and shamir published the idea of differential
cryptanalysis.  it turns out that the design of the s-boxes is
optimized against differential cryptanalysis and also that the 16
rounds were chosen specifically to defeat differential cryptanalysis.
ibm researchers and the nsa knew about that in the early 70s.

so the nsa did two things: they made sure that des was safe against
differential cryptanalysis, in case some other entity had also
discovered it, and also they classified the criteria of the design, to
make sure that the public wouldn't find out about differential
cryptanalysis.  the nsa came out looking bad, but in retrospect, both
of these actions really were for the benefit cryptography users.

of course the 56 bit key size is more suspicious now than ever, and i
would be very surprised if a des breaking machine didn't exist
somewhere in the world.

could clipper be the repeat of this story?  on the surface, it all
looks pretty suspicious, and maybe the character of the nsa has
changed since the 70s, but we can't dismiss the possibility that it
really is somehow in our own best interests.  remember, they know more
about cryptography than any other group anywhere in the world.

e

>could clipper be the repeat of this story?  on the surface, it all
>looks pretty suspicious, and maybe the character of the nsa has
>changed since the 70s, but we can't dismiss the possibility that it
>really is somehow in our own best interests.  remember, they know more
>about cryptography than any other group anywhere in the world.

Clipper has a front door.  Skipjack doesn't.

Skipjack may be a fine cipher, but I sure as hell don't want Clipper.
Last I heard you couldn't get one without the other.

Eric

I'm going to take this opportunity to find out how many of your are in NYC
or will be in NYC for PC-Expo?  I just got a flyer today announcing it.  Since
I noticed that Stevens Miller's phone number is in the 212 area code I might
call him and see if he'd be interested in lending a hand with giving out
free secure crypto software at PcExpo...  I bounced this idea around before,
and now it's time to actually work on it. :-)

Who can join in and for which days?  All we have to do is hand out free
cypherpunk disks to people entering/leaving PCExpo and maybe some flyers
along with the disks.  They'll think its some sort of promo, and they'll
be quite correct.  I'll be a Cypherpunks promo.