Re: Lobbying/Politics/etc.

Jim Sewell writes:
>
>        The term Cypherpunks is amorphous, thus subject to use and abuse
>        by the masses.  When people like Jeff Davis and Phill Zimmermann
>        say "The cypherpunks are generally opposed to Clipper" it makes us
>        an "organization" which, like it or not, does have representatives
>        and agendas.

No, it makes Messrs. Davis and Zimmerman guilty of overstepping their
bounds by acting as though they speak on behalf of the amorphous group
which makes up this mailing list.  My saying that midget Lithuanian
plumbers are generally opposed to the free sale of chocalate cherry
cordials doesn't make it so.

Mr. Zimmerman doesn't represent _me_.  I question whether Mr. Davis
represents even _himself_.

If you want to play lobbyist, go ahead.  Leave me out of it.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

You know.. I wonder with all this bickerig if in fact we CAN agree on the
fact that we all are opposed to invasions of our privacy via governemnt
surveillance techniques.. Can we agree on that issue? It seems to me that I
have heard a consensus on this at least...
	One more thing- I recently completed a first ddrafty of a paper I
am working on regarding computer curveillance, Clipper, etc- and the
professor who read it asked me "What is the likelihood and what re the
reaosns for the NSA and other governments agencies wanting to monitor the
people?" I wasn't sure of exactly how to answer that! I mean- it seems to
me that the governemnt wants to maintain its own power, and keep a watchful
eye on those with opinions oppposite of their own. Any other reasons you
all can think of? Hmm..


 -- Jul

"Can I be a social anarchist? " 

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

<In mail Julietta said:>
> 
> You know.. I wonder with all this bickerig if in fact we CAN agree on the
> fact that we all are opposed to invasions of our privacy via governemnt
> surveillance techniques.. Can we agree on that issue? It seems to me that I
> have heard a consensus on this at least...


  You know, she is right.  

  I have gotten about equal amounts of mail for and against the idea of
  a list and the idea for a "Guide to Cypherpunks" if you will.  Each were
  fanatically stated with few exceptions.  Each was unmovable on their
  opinions.

  It is with this that I make the following statement:

	I will not construct a list or attempt to construct a document
	to tell the world what this group is.

	I fully support the creation of such items but do not have the
	patience nor, due to a situation at work, the time to wade thru
	tons of mail and wade thru the flames I've gotten on just an 
	initial query.

	If anyone else would like to adopt this project, please contact
	me so I can give you my information.  I will not give out the
	names of those who have responded to me for privacy reasons.
	If you wish to do this, please ask again and I'm sure the ones
	who responded previously will do so again if your effort is
	a serious one.

  I do want to remind those who were afraid of having their names on
  a list that there is a 90% chance that someone in the NSA, FBI, etc
  has done a whois to majordomo and already has your email name which
  is all that I'd suggested in the first place.

  I will continue to do my part to try to influence the running of this
  country.  I am not kicking back with a beer and cigar and saying that
  we can do nothing and I hope it all works out.  We must run our own
  country or our country will run us.

  Good luck to all and no ill will.  (This list is too emotional sometimes
  due to the topics covered.  They are beliefs and not opinions and a
  belief can not be changed by another person like an opinion can.)

  Anyway, take care
	 Jim


	 <No, don't jump for joy... I'm still going to be on the list! :>

-- 
 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

>   I do want to remind those who were afraid of having their names on
>   a list that there is a 90% chance that someone in the NSA, FBI, etc
>   has done a whois to majordomo and already has your email name which
>   is all that I'd suggested in the first place.

And they can kiss my fat ass for all I care.  As long as crypto is legal
there ain't a thing they can use that list for except to deny you jobs.
Look at PZ.  They still haven't had the balls to have him fully arrested.
Sure he's under suspicion.  But how much net noise will happen if he does
get jail time?  How much anarchy is the NSA looking for?  My gut feeling is
that the second he's slammed in jail that a lot of folks will just mass
export crypto just for the hell of it.  Are they going to spend billions
trying to investigate a few hundred thousand violations?

At one point, I certainly feared their wrath, but it no longer matters.
The worst they could do is throw me in jail or have me killed, both of which
would eventually leak out to the media, causing far more attention to crypto
and crypto usage than anything.  (Now I'm under no illusions of being an
important person, no ego trip for me, but I figure that if some snot nosed
pirate kid gets his face all over the news  for something idiotic like
running a pirate ftp site, just imagine how much noise will be generated by
the media when they hear that a cypherpunk was jailed for crypts...)

 
>   I will continue to do my part to try to influence the running of this
>   country.  I am not kicking back with a beer and cigar and saying that
>   we can do nothing and I hope it all works out.  We must run our own
>   country or our country will run us.

Absolutely.  Let those who fear the NSA, FBI, ??? hide if they like, but
there's no need to fear the spooks.  I'd bet some of them are even sympathetic
to having free crypto without key surrender.  Besides those who hide can
infact also be productive through anon remailers.  It's time to make some
noise and wake up everyone we can into killing clipper.
 
>   Good luck to all and no ill will.  (This list is too emotional sometimes
>   due to the topics covered.  They are beliefs and not opinions and a
>   belief can not be changed by another person like an opinion can.)

Sure, but that's why this is not a moderated list.  Anarchy does have its
advantages and also its disadvantages.  I'd like to do with less flame wars
on here, or at least have'em taken off the list...  But that's my personal
belief. :-)

Fight, fight, fight.
encrypt, encrypt, encrypt...
die clipper, die, die, die!

From:    Julietta <albright@chaph.usc.edu>

> I wasn't sure of exactly how to answer that! I mean- it seems to
> me that the governemnt wants to maintain its own power, and keep a watchful
> eye on those with opinions oppposite of their own. Any other reasons you
> all can think of? Hmm..
>
> -- Jul
>
> "Can I be a social anarchist? " 
Most TLAs are required, by their charter/nature/whatever, to have a very
paranoid world view.  Governmental Intelligence (oxy-moron) deals with
*POSSIBILITIES* before considering intent.  For the most part, this is
useful.  However, it works both ways.  WE must also deal with Possibilities
before considering Intent.  Most employees of TLAs are, IMO, honest and
patriotic citizens.  It only takes ONE, however, to destroy all trust and
credibilty for the agency.

The NSAs refusal to publicly discuss ways to safeguard against such abuse
is one of the key arguments against Clipper/EES and Digital Telephony
issues currently under debate "on the net."  (However, I *STRONGLY* urge
the TLAs to continue their hard-nosed positions.  Stand fast you guys. ;-)

To answer your original question; the reasons why NSA would monitor us will
seem completely sane and reasonable TO THEM.  You MIGHT be engaged in
activities harmful to "the rest of us."  Even Joe Public will find their
arguments difficult to refute, particularly following a terrorist-type
incident involving loss of life.

Likelihood?  ==>  100%

> it seems to me that the governemnt wants to maintain its own power,

Of course it does.  Any other expectation is unreasonable.  Very few
(even of us altruistic heroes ;-) willlingly relinquish power once
it is acquired.  The trick is limit what they acquire...

Dave Otto -- dave@gershwin.jta.edd.ca.gov -- daveotto@acm.org
	GAT d++(-)@ -p+(---) c+++ l u++(-) e++/* m++(*) s-/+ !n 
		h---(*) f+ g+++ w+ t++ r+ y++(*)

On Tue, 3 May 1994, Dave Otto wrote:

> To answer your original question; the reasons why NSA would monitor us will
> seem completely sane and reasonable TO THEM.  You MIGHT be engaged in
> activities harmful to "the rest of us."  Even Joe Public will find their
> arguments difficult to refute, particularly following a terrorist-type
> incident involving loss of life.

If doing activity 'A' will get the results you want, why not make 'A' 
happen?  Consider a successful terrorist attack against a significant 
group of innocents (the larger the number killed, the greater the horror 
and shock value).  The terrorists were using PGP-encrypted email to plan 
out the thing.

Now, how long do you think it would take before ALL crypto was outlawed?  
Who would benefit from such a thing?  Consider that it's child's play to 
finance, arm, and train a group of people to conduct a terrorist attack 
and (conveniently) they all get killed in their attack.  No one's going 
to complain too loudly - after all, they *are* terrorists, right?

One wonders just how many people who went out with their AK's and shot up 
schools and restaurants did it because they had been financed by someone 
with an axe to grind against the RKBAers.  One also wonders just how long 
it will take before someone does the same thing to crypto.

> One wonders just how many people who went out with their AK's and shot up 
> schools and restaurants did it because they had been financed by someone 
> with an axe to grind against the RKBAers.  One also wonders just how long 
> it will take before someone does the same thing to crypto.

To preserve *MY* sanity, I try to imagine that this can't happen here.
However, reality suggests that it has :-(  In this case, IMO, "they"
won't need to stage anything, just be selective in the info they
release.  Taking advantage of the "heat of pasion" is something that
lobbyist are extremely at.  The only way *I* can see to counter it, is to
make sure that crypto is explicitely allowed (not that banning it will
stop anyone ;-)  If it can be advocated as a freedom-of-speech issue BEFORE
the emotions of the public are involved, we have a chance.  If not, check
crypto servers for public keys and mail drop info....

Dave Otto -- dave@gershwin.jta.edd.ca.gov -- daveotto@acm.org
	GAT d++(-)@ -p+(---) c+++ l u++(-) e++/* m++(*) s-/+ !n 
		h---(*) f+ g+++ w+ t++ r+ y++(*)

| > One wonders just how many people who went out with their AK's and shot up 
| > schools and restaurants did it because they had been financed by someone 
| > with an axe to grind against the RKBAers.  One also wonders just how long 
| > it will take before someone does the same thing to crypto.

	I'd just like to comment that this is a pretty damned sick
allegation against the gun-control folks.  Most of them are pretty
bleeding heart, and I really can't see any of them encouraging someone
to go out & shoot up a playground to get gun control laws passed.

	Lets please not get into the politics of gun control, but I
did want to respond to one of the more offensive and lame suggestions
thrown to the list in recent memory.


Adam

-- 
Adam Shostack 				       adam@bwh.harvard.edu

Politics.  From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small,
annoying bloodsucker.

Have you signed the anti-Clipper petition?

Ed Carp <ecarp@netcom.com> sez:
> Consider a successful terrorist attack against a significant 
> group of innocents (the larger the number killed, the greater the horror 
> and shock value).  The terrorists were using PGP-encrypted email to plan 
> out the thing.
> 
> Now, how long do you think it would take before ALL crypto was outlawed?  
> Who would benefit from such a thing?  Consider that it's child's play to 
> finance, arm, and train a group of people to conduct a terrorist attack 
> and (conveniently) they all get killed in their attack.  No one's going 
> to complain too loudly - after all, they *are* terrorists, right?

I suspect significant problems implementing a law that criminalizes
crypto.  The government currently spends $billions per year trying to
eliminate illegal drugs, to very little effect.  Drugs should be
easier to eliminate than crypto since phys-obs can't be copied ad
infinitum as bits can.

There's also the matter of recognizing crypto in use.  A program that
transforms its input so that the output can be converted back to the
input but has maximum entropy is a good compression program and might
also be an encryption program.  If a TLA taps my phone and finds a
mysterious bit sequence, how can they distinguish reliably and cheaply
between an encrypted conversation and a download of
emacs-19.22.tar.gz?

I don't claim *they* can't try to outlaw crypto, and I certainly don't
claim they can't kill millions in the effort, but I *do* claim that
eliminating crypto is a very hard problem.

Inspired by my recently-arrived "Cypherpunk Criminal" t-shirt,

Stephen

On Wed, 4 May 1994, Stephen Humble wrote:

> Ed Carp <ecarp@netcom.com> sez:
> > Consider a successful terrorist attack against a significant 
> > group of innocents (the larger the number killed, the greater the horror 
> > and shock value).  The terrorists were using PGP-encrypted email to plan 
> > out the thing.
> > 
> > Now, how long do you think it would take before ALL crypto was outlawed?  
> > Who would benefit from such a thing?  Consider that it's child's play to 
> > finance, arm, and train a group of people to conduct a terrorist attack 
> > and (conveniently) they all get killed in their attack.  No one's going 
> > to complain too loudly - after all, they *are* terrorists, right?
> 
> I suspect significant problems implementing a law that criminalizes
> crypto.  The government currently spends $billions per year trying to
> eliminate illegal drugs, to very little effect.  Drugs should be
> easier to eliminate than crypto since phys-obs can't be copied ad
> infinitum as bits can.
> 
> There's also the matter of recognizing crypto in use.  A program that
> transforms its input so that the output can be converted back to the
> input but has maximum entropy is a good compression program and might
> also be an encryption program.  If a TLA taps my phone and finds a
> mysterious bit sequence, how can they distinguish reliably and cheaply
> between an encrypted conversation and a download of
> emacs-19.22.tar.gz?

Unless you use some sort of stego software, most encrypted stuff is 
pretty easy to figure out that it *is* encrypted.  grep " BEGIN PGP " 
message is a pretty good way to detect PGP traffic, magic numbers will 
tell you if it's a compressed file or not, etc.  It might not be 
necessary to prove what you were using to encrypt, merely proving that 
you *were* encrypting might be sufficient.

It's like the FCC: if they catch a ham sending out packets, and the FCC 
can't read them, they issue you a pink slip.  Doesn't matter what you're 
using, the meaning is obscured, and that's enough for them.