Devil's advocate

I am being a sort of devil's advocate here.  Please leave the flame
throwers at home.

I see an argument of "what do you need to protect so badly that Clipper
cannot work?  Are you doing something ILLEGAL?  Clipper works, and only
trusted law enforcement personell can use the keys, therefore there is
no risk here.".

It is hard to explain to some liberal friends of mine that 
"trusted law enforcement personell" could mean judges, policeman, friends
of policeman, etc.

Just blathering on, but I have not seen any real counters to this.

PS:  Is there something out there that can do a sort of Kerboros with
PGP?  Basically the two hosts would use IDEA and RSA for communicating
with each other, and normal TCP/IP for communicating with hosts
without this program.




------------
To respond to the sender of this message, send mail to
remailer@soda.berkeley.edu, starting your message with
the following 8 lines:
::
Response-Key: ideaclipper

====Encrypted-Sender-Begin====
MI@```%AS^P;+]AB?X9TW6\8WR:2P&2%`$A:^X<=%NK,O<WT)5.AU1X(X-.IM
MXGP85,'U521D,MAL[8V$8.!?+;DI[1U<C\)3G54T(4'GQ=P$1&YL9%C=]'[,
#>D^@
====Encrypted-Sender-End====

C'punks:

On Thu, 30 Jun 1994, Anonymous User wrote:

> 
> I see an argument of "what do you need to protect so badly that Clipper
> cannot work?  Are you doing something ILLEGAL?  Clipper works, and only
> trusted law enforcement personell can use the keys, therefore there is
> no risk here.".
> 
> It is hard to explain to some liberal friends of mine . . .

For liberals, I would examine some pet cause and examine the consequences 
of that cause becoming "illegal."  For instance, if your friends are "pro 
choice," you might ask them what they would do if the right to lifers 
outlawed abortion.  Would they think it was wrong for a rape victim to 
get an abortion just because it was illegal?  How would they feel about 
an abortion "underground railroad" organized via a network of "stations" 
coordinated via the Internet using "illegal encryption"?  Or would they 
trust Clipper in such a situation?

Everyone in America is passionate about something.  Such passion usually 
dispenses with mere legalism, when it comes to what the believer feels is 
a question of fundamental right and wrong.  Hit them with an argument 
that addresses their passion.  Craft a pro-crypto argument that helps 
preserve the object of that passion.


 S a n d y

> Anonymous User <nobody@soda.berkeley.edu> writes:
> I see an argument of "what do you need to protect so badly that Clipper
> cannot work?  Are you doing something ILLEGAL?  Clipper works, and only

I suppose this has been answered so often that it doesn't make sense to
scrub over it again, but I'll give a few short answers anyway.

Answer 1:
    Wrong question: Once you allow the question "What do you have to hide?"
    about your communications, you don't have a good place to stop the
    inquiries about the rest of your life.  Law enforcement should not be
    allowed to dictate that you behave in a way that will facilitate their
    surveillance; they need to show probable cause <before> starting their
    proceedings against you.

Answer 2:
    Sometimes the advances of science favor the police, and sometimes they
    don't -- luck of the draw.  LE has a lot of tools available that they
    didn't have a few decades ago, including DNA matching, fiber analysis,
    and cellular phone triangulation.  Crypto may reduce one way for them
    to read our mail, but they have others that weren't available before;
    if they have reasonable cause for a court order, let them roll in the
    Van Eck radiation van, plant bugs, sneak in and dump your hard disk,
    or whatever.

Answer 3:
    Clipper's a crappy idea anyway.  The escrow concept is expensive and
    wouldn't be used by criminals as long as it's voluntary; it provides a
    single point of attack for non-governmental bad guys; and any red-neck
    sheriff who can convince a judge to issue a court order can get keys
    without the escrow agency even knowing that they're handing over the
    keys for the Republican state committee's phone system.

That's all independent of whether you can trust Mykotronx and their
masters not to keep copies of the keys while they're making them before
they put them in escrow.

	Jim Gillogly
	8 Afterlithe S.R. 1994, 01:25

> 
> Answer 1:
>     Wrong question: Once you allow the question "What do you have to hide?"
>     about your communications, you don't have a good place to stop the
>     inquiries about the rest of your life.  Law enforcement should not be
>     allowed to dictate that you behave in a way that will facilitate their
>     surveillance; they need to show probable cause <before> starting their
>     proceedings against you.
>
My responce would be why do you want to know what I information I am    
exchangeing and while we are on the topic, can I look at your corresponcance?

I suspect that this flip would shut them up quite quickly.

It is not the law enforcement but rather the legislatures impression of the
desires of the general populace that will dictate this.

> Answer 2:
>     Sometimes the advances of science favor the police, and sometimes they
>     don't -- luck of the draw.  LE has a lot of tools available that they
>     didn't have a few decades ago, including DNA matching, fiber analysis,
>     and cellular phone triangulation.  Crypto may reduce one way for them
>     to read our mail, but they have others that weren't available before;
>     if they have reasonable cause for a court order, let them roll in the
>     Van Eck radiation van, plant bugs, sneak in and dump your hard disk,
>     or whatever.
>
If law enforcement was meant to be easy why do we have the Constitution and
such concpets as proof and probably cause?

The argument that we should do anything simply because it makes somebodies
job easier is fallacious. Our responsibilities (both personal and societal)
don't include making other peoples lives easier (it does mean not making them
harder in some cases).

> 
> That's all independent of whether you can trust Mykotronx and their
> masters not to keep copies of the keys while they're making them before
> they put them in escrow.
>
When we are talking about a persons freedoms and rights I would hold that
no person or agency is entitled to trust. They must prove they are a 
paramour.

On Thu, 30 Jun 1994, Jim Gillogly wrote:
> > Anonymous User <nobody@soda.berkeley.edu> writes:
> > I see an argument of "what do you need to protect so badly that Clipper
> > cannot work?  Are you doing something ILLEGAL?  Clipper works, and only
Let me add:

#4
We, a concerned citizen group, are investigating *you(r orginisation)*  for 
suspicion of organized child abuse, and would like to keep the aligations we 
have so far private.  Why do you want our private messages put in public 
view, where everyone would hear these unsubstantiated rumors?  
Furthermore, you have nothing to hide, so why do you mind if we 
investigate you?

:-)

Roger, Go for the Juggler, Bryner.