A possible solution

I was sitting down and thinking about the problem of responsibily of 
using non-escrowed public key cryptography. Well here is a possible 
answer. Law enforcement agents have several different methods of 
finding out about crimes that might happen. And this means they wouldn't 
be allowed to tap phone lines or use key-escrowed systems like Clipper. 
Then people who do use non-escrowed public key cryptography for illegal 
actions would have problems. If they are caught by other means such as 
tips from anonymous sources and are then caught doing something illegal 
and they are also using non-escrowed public key cryptography to commit these
illegal acts, then the fines and jail time should be increased. This 
reasoning is based on the fact that we need to be more responsible with 
technology. Therefore, the government would allow us to go on about our 
business using non-escrowed key systems, but if misused by the public 
there would be harsher punishments to the misusing individual. There are 
plenty of informants out there who can help the law enforcement agencies. 
We use public key crypt such as PGP. They won't be able to read it, but 
if there is misuse and the peron is convicted of a crime and is using PGP 
or some other non-escrowed system to commit the crimes he was convicted 
of, it's more trouble for him. TO me this is the best solution and it's 
the only thing I would allow. The government cannot be allowed to tap our 
phone lines the way they would like to using CLipper or SKE or some other 
type of system. We need to keep our rights but we need to still make it 
known that PGP is not meant for corruption and illegal use. IT's meant 
for private conversation in it due time.
 
I need feedback desperately on this idea. I am incorporating this idea 
into a two page paper called Dealing with Technology in the Future. I 
want this to be part of the solution. But I would like to know what 
others feel about this idea.

Aaron
513-276-3817 voice
s009amf@discover.wright.edu 
Big Government Sucks!!!

Aron Freed writes:
 > If they are caught by other means such as tips from anonymous
 > sources and are then caught doing something illegal and they are
 > also using non-escrowed public key cryptography to commit these
 > illegal acts, then the fines and jail time should be increased. This  
 > reasoning is based on the fact that we need to be more responsible
 > with technology.

So why pick specifically on cryptography?  Why not increase penalties
for criminals who in their crimes are found to have used:

*	computers;
*	pagers;
*	cellular phones;
*	Casio watches with multiple alarms;
*	Cars with power windows;
*	Velcro-fastening tennis shoes;
*	Gore-Tex jackets;
*	Ibuprofen pain relievers;
*	Fat-free ice cream;

. . .

| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |

Aron Freed writes:
 > > So why pick specifically on cryptography?
 > 
 > Why don't we stick to the topic? 

!!

 > Do you have an intelligent reply or are you going to shoot your
 > mouth off? 

!!!!!

Ok, look Aaron.  You post a long note asking for comments and you get
some.  Seems to me you need to decide whether you really want feedback
or instead you just want people to pat you on the back and say "wow,
what a great idea Aaron."  If it's the latter, you'd better stick to
showing your little ideas to Mom.

 > Or Maybe you can share something better with us, all knowing and
 > wise one. 

My reply was completely serious, and I'd hope that someone pursuing an
education would understand it.  If you didn't (and so it appears),
then let me state my point again more simply: your idea is flawed in
that it arbitrarily treats cryptography as a technology that uniquely
demands a degree of "responsible use" so great that "irresponsible
use" must be specifically punished.  I think you should ponder why
that's justified instead of just making bald assertions.  I also think
you should consider what a precedent such a policy would set.  Once
it's accepted that irresponsible use of cryptography deserves extra
punishment, then why exactly should any technology (yes, even
including velcro!) not be similarly considered?  What would such a
legal structure imply?


| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |

On Sun, 27 Nov 1994, Mike McNally wrote:

> So why pick specifically on cryptography?  Why not increase penalties
> for criminals who in their crimes are found to have used:
> 
> *	computers;
> *	pagers;
> *	cellular phones;
> *	Casio watches with multiple alarms;
> *	Cars with power windows;
> *	Velcro-fastening tennis shoes;
> *	Gore-Tex jackets;
> *	Ibuprofen pain relievers;
> *	Fat-free ice cream;

Why don't we stick to the topic? Do you have an intelligent reply or are 
you going to shoot your mouth off? Or Maybe you can share something 
better with us, all knowing and wise one.

Aaron

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

A(a)ron Freed writes:
> If they are caught by other means such as
> tips from anonymous sources and are then caught doing something illegal
> and they are also using non-escrowed public key cryptography to commit these
> illegal acts, then the fines and jail time should be increased. This
> reasoning is based on the fact that we need to be more responsible with
> technology. [...] We need to keep our rights but we need to still make it
> known that PGP is not meant for corruption and illegal use. [...] I need 
> feedback desperately on this idea. [...] I would like to know what others 
> feel about this idea.

Mike McNally writes:
# So why pick specifically on cryptography?  Why not increase penalties
# for criminals who in their crimes are found to have used:
# *	computers;
[...]
# *	Fat-free ice cream;

A(a)ron Freed writes:
> Why don't we stick to the topic? Do you have an intelligent reply or are 
> you going to shoot your mouth off? 

Relax and chill out with some fat-free ice cream. You wanted to hear some 
opinions, and you just heard one. If you're already fairly attached to this 
idea, you probably should have made that clearer in soliciting critical 
comment. I was tempted to reply to this earlier, but I felt Mike's retort did 
an ample job.

Why, indeed, pick specifically on crypto ?  IMHO the choice of tools employed
in the commission of the crime should only be relevant in determining the 
punishment if it substantially alters the nature of the crime. Robbing Ed's 
Superette with a gun in hand is substantially different from robbing
it with a bouquet of flowers in hand. OTOH, robbing Ed while wearing track
shoes counts the same as hitting his store while wearing fins. I don't get a
break for being stupid enough to pull a robbery in diving gear, but I don't
suffer more for having the sense to don appropriate skedaddling apparel.

Note that U.S. laws do *not* conform to any such standard, AFA I'm concerned.
If I were nabbed driving down into CT carrying a kilo of uncut heroin, I'd be
in much hotter watter than if they pulled me over on the Mass Pike just 
ouside Cambridge. In this instance it's a matter of jurisdiction: cross state
lines and suddenly the feds have to deal with you.  Perhaps better paradigms
are wire fraud and mail fraud. If I knock on your door and offer to protect
all your data forever with a proprietary algorithm that's *much* faster than
DES, that's one thing. If I send you a postcard or leave a message on your
answering machine with the same offer, I'm suddenly liable for stiff fines
from the feds.  This seems rather absurd to me, but that's the law for ya.

At any rate, I'm not about to get behind any initiative that suggests 
_tougher_ penalties for use of non-escrowed crypto under any circumstance. 

Especially for DCW, IANAL.

- -L. Futplex McCarthy; PGP key by finger or server; "Better watch what you say,
or they'll be calling you a radical...a liberal" --Supertramp  
"He took information in shopping bags out the front door" --a member of
Congress, describing CIA/KGB mole Aldrich Ames
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1

iQCVAwUBLtlGUmf7YYibNzjpAQFZ2AP/U4hcBuF92enkquQl/77iD1SvcbFJX3E+
wRqmJiRP88aW6zwbrQYOqDmx232uSOcpVddzYD5VNJ3ZzXlTSY5Ciu5JBQByQSRC
a+CFmN72oISerDuhoqZymEDq8EFyQ5HrKzld1hCWYTgOycPIRN1/I4/LJVXlVdan
qhUlijs8jaI=
=QG2H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Date: Sun, 27 Nov 1994 20:33:32 -0500 (EST)
    From: Aron Freed <s009amf@discover.wright.edu>

    Why don't we stick to the topic? Do you have an intelligent reply
    or are you going to shoot your mouth off? Or Maybe you can share
    something better with us, all knowing and wise one.

His reply was perfectly intelligent.  Why don't you answer his
question: Why pick on cryptography and not the other items in the
list?  Why not simply require that government respect the right of
individuals to engage in private conversation?  If someone commits a
`crime' without using cryptography is there less harm to society than
if they did use cryptography?

What is there about your proposal that might make anyone think that it
wasn't completely ridiculous?

			Rick

On Sun, 27 Nov 1994, Rick Busdiecker wrote:

> His reply was perfectly intelligent.  Why don't you answer his
> question: Why pick on cryptography and not the other items in the
> list?  Why not simply require that government respect the right of
> individuals to engage in private conversation?  If someone commits a
> `crime' without using cryptography is there less harm to society than
> if they did use cryptography?

The use of cryptography makes it virtually impossible to know anything.
If everyone used to PGP to communicate. I mean everybody in the whole 
entire world. There would be no possible way to ever know what is going 
on. OKay. WE could do that, but guess what. You might as well get your 
self your own arsenal of weapons because if you can't trust the govt. 
you're going to be only trusting yourself. IF that's what ya want, do it. 
But I want to live in a world where I can at least step outside and 
breathe in the fresh air..


 
> What is there about your proposal that might make anyone think that it
> wasn't completely ridiculous?
> 
> 			Rick
>

> From: Aron Freed <s009amf@discover.wright.edu>
> On Sun, 27 Nov 1994, Rick Busdiecker wrote:
> > [...]  If someone commits a
> > `crime' without using cryptography is there less harm to society than
> > if they did use cryptography?
> 
> The use of cryptography makes it virtually impossible to know anything.

Bullshit.  Advances in technology are making many things easier to do.  In
addition to making it harder to tap into an arbitrary data communication
that is encrypted it has made actually monitoring a specific individual
much easier.  Bugs are getting much better and much more sophisticated.  It
is almost at the point where Joe Citizen-Unit can walk into a "Spy Shop
(tm)" and pick out a set of gear that will allow him to monitor his
friends, enemies, and lovers without fear of detection.  Bugs, and cameras
are getting smaller, better, and cheaper.  

The ability of the state to monitor those it suspects of breaking laws is
in no danger, and anyone who tells you that it encryption is a legitimate
threat to law enforcement is either ignorant or a liar.  What it does
prevent is "fishing expeditions"; it prevents someone from just going out
and listening in on thousands of conversations in the hopes of catching a
criminal or two.  It places the burden of proof upon the prosecutors when
it comes to gathering evidence, an American value that is older than our
current government.

> [...] You might as well get your 
> self your own arsenal of weapons because if you can't trust the govt. 
> you're going to be only trusting yourself. IF that's what ya want, do it. 
> But I want to live in a world where I can at least step outside and 
> breathe in the fresh air..

At least you can at the moment.  Who knows what may happen.  One
interesting thing about governments is that they do not last as long as
societies do and struggle to thier last gasp to prevent thier own decay
(societies in the cultural-identity/shared-values/common location sense of
the word.)  In 1917 a wacky Austrian corporal was just another cog in the
great machine of the germanic society, in less than twenty years he molded
a state that is closer to Orwell's vision than just about any we have ever
seen.  Twenty years ago an American president could subvert chunks of the
national security apparatus in the interests of maintaining his hold on
power (and he is remarkable for being the only one that has been caught,
IMHO...) 

I trust the people I work with and live with far more than I do any
government agency.  The U.S. federal governement, for example, has become
so isolated from the reality of it's own citizens that if you trust it as
much as you seem to then one day it is quite possible that you will wake up
to a very rude surprise.

Please stand in line over there with the rest of the sheep...

jim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.941128172650.13011A-100000@discover>, you wrote:

> The use of cryptography makes it virtually impossible to know anything.
> If everyone used to PGP to communicate. I mean everybody in the whole
> entire world. There would be no possible way to ever know what is going
> on.

No, just the things that other people and institutions have NO BUSINESS
KNOWING. I value my privacy. I do not take it for granted. If everyone in
the world used PGP or some other form of strong crypto to protect
confidential information it might start to rebuild our right to privacy
which is being chipped away daily. We do have the right and responsibility
to privacy. Our right is to privacy, our responsibility is to protect it.

> OKay. WE could do that, but guess what. You might as well get your
> self your own arsenal of weapons because if you can't trust the govt.
> you're going to be only trusting yourself.

You show just how naive you are. The government has long since stopped
representing its citizens. Its sole interest is to perpetuate itself. This
happened when politicians replaced statesmen. The needs of the citizens are
no longer the needs of government. Citizens are just here to pay the bills
and go along with the ride. We have no one to blame but ourselves, we keep
electing the same idiots year after year and never hold them accountable.
We believe what they say, not what they do.

> But I want to live in a world where I can at least step outside and
> breathe in the fresh air..

So do I but, if you trust the government, this will vanish too. I prefer to
breathe the fresh air and ensure that my children will be able to do the
same.

==============================================================================

The fewer clear facts you have in support of an opinion,
the stronger your emotional attachment to that opinion.
                         - Anonymous

==============================================================================
skaplin@skypoint.com                   | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard
                                       | outside a Roman brothel.
PGP encrypted mail is accepted and     |
preferred.                             | Change is the only constant in the
                                       | Universe..."Four quarters, please."
E-mail key@four11.com for PGP Key or   |
Finger skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com     | Smile!! Big brother is watching.
==============================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBLtrZ/QpnimeWAf3FAQHPYwP+JyTXMBMoB2Jz6z92oFSSIE9rDBPRuDsD
P5tI+Qykw52I05wjZG9T6+yPUEFC1UKlThALWb6aXkCctjwewqFRcs59gJF1Dznn
gVy1HjNqUm0IVzuFtYOAi0phDWoHUEnfgArEZ9sFNruk7fSvQ5n6OCI31G5qYXS7
Wv7hSJRBI0Y=
=2gkN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> > So why pick specifically on cryptography?  Why not increase penalties
> > for criminals who in their crimes are found to have used:
> > 
> > *	computers;
> > *	pagers;
> > *	cellular phones;
> > *	Casio watches with multiple alarms;
> > *	Cars with power windows;
> > *	Velcro-fastening tennis shoes;
> > *	Gore-Tex jackets;
> > *	Ibuprofen pain relievers;
> > *	Fat-free ice cream;
> 
> Why don't we stick to the topic? Do you have an intelligent reply or are 
> you going to shoot your mouth off? Or Maybe you can share something 
> better with us, all knowing and wise one.
> 
> Aaron

His was the most intelligent reply I've seen.  Why don't you answer
the question instead of evading it?  What is special about cryptography
that makes its use in a crime a Bad Thing, whereas the use of, say, a
toaster, is not?  Attempts to punish the tools instead of the crime
make as much sense and are as unsuccessful as treating an infection-caused
fever with aspirin instead of treating the infection itself.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker  /o)\ "Vast amounts of unused information ultimately
lcrocker@netcom.com \(o/  become a kind of pollution."
Magic Edge: CROCK        --Al Gore