Re: The future will be easy to use

At 11:06 AM 11/27/95, Raph Levien wrote:

.. stuff..

>The competition for which cryptographic protocol wins will be
>decided on the basis of usability.
.. stuff..
>   If cypherpunks are to have any hope of getting their vision of strong
>crypto implemented and deployed, it has to be in the context of usable
>systems.

.. stuff..

>   There's no way around it. This kind of system will not make it in the
>big time. As I see it, any system that does must have the following
>properties:
>
>   * Some variant on the Web of Trust.
>
>   * Online key-servers for getting keys in real time.
>
>   * A clean mechanism for validating keys through alternate channels.
>
>   There are three possible outcomes: we build it, the NSA builds it, or
>Microsoft/Netscape builds it. This last outcome might not be so bad, but
>only in the first one can we rely on our principles being advanced.

This is a very important period. The technology is young enough that a
window is open for a non-giant to produce a dominant product.

On the other hand, it takes actual coordination of resources. I'm not sure
that it is within the range of Cypherpunks to take advantage of this
window. There is still no agreement whether the group can be said to have a
single vision, nor whether people within it want to be bounded by another's
view.

If people really wish to take advantage of this and really push things, it
means forming a group, made up of Cypherpunk members perhaps, but much
smaller, and capable of working together. Also capable of handling not only
the theory, but good solid code, GUI, PR, meetings, talking to the
government, etc.

It is an open window yes, but not a simple one. I'd love to see widespread
use of secure encryption, however I don't think the potential exists within
the Cypherpunk framework to reach it as 'Cypherpunks'. The question then
is, whether Cypherpunks should change, or whether a smaller group will be
formed.

Jonathan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
..Jonathan Zamick                    Consensus Development Corporation..
..<JonathanZ@consensus.com>                      1563 Solano Ave, #355..
..                                             Berkeley, CA 94707-2116..
..                                        o510/559-1500  f510/559-1505..
..Mosaic/WWW Home Page:                                               ..
..  Consensus Home Page       ..

On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Jonathan Zamick wrote:

> This is a very important period. The technology is young enough that a
> window is open for a non-giant to produce a dominant product.

Full agreement.

> On the other hand, it takes actual coordination of resources. I'm not sure
> that it is within the range of Cypherpunks to take advantage of this
> window. There is still no agreement whether the group can be said to have a
> single vision, nor whether people within it want to be bounded by another's
> view.
> 
> If people really wish to take advantage of this and really push things, it
> means forming a group, made up of Cypherpunk members perhaps, but much
> smaller, and capable of working together. Also capable of handling not only
> the theory, but good solid code, GUI, PR, meetings, talking to the
> government, etc.

Right.

> It is an open window yes, but not a simple one. I'd love to see widespread
> use of secure encryption, however I don't think the potential exists within
> the Cypherpunk framework to reach it as 'Cypherpunks'. The question then
> is, whether Cypherpunks should change, or whether a smaller group will be
> formed.

I think that changing the focus of cypherpunks is intractable enough that 
forming a new group is the only feasible alternative. Right now, I don't 
have the time to try to form such a group, but I would be an enhusiastic 
participant if such a group was to be formed.

Incidentally, I've had one bad experience with this type of thing (it was
the PGP 3.0 development team), so I realize it's not easy. A couple of
things I've learned from the experience: 

* Clear goals.

* A leader, someone who would call the shots, and would also serve as the
person you'd have to convince.

* Open communications. Shrouding a project in secrecy is a good way to 
kill it. This is one potential advantage we have over the spooks.

It _is_ doable. I know the skill is out there. Wei Dai, Eric Young, Peter
Gutmann, and others have proved themselves quit capable of writing good
solid code. Sameer Parekh has done an incredible job with PR. Phil Karn,
Dan Bernstein, and some others (who I'm not sure want to be named) are
talking to the government. GUI I'm less sure about, but I'd hope that some
cpunks would come out of the woodwork.

It is not a matter of ability, but of will.

Raph

One more time for the security/cypher-impared (me at least).

I suspect there are a fair number of lurkers here who code for a living
and would be willing to contribute if someone/the_group can articulate
a requirements statement and then push it to the design stage.

I bring nothing cypher-wise. I would be willing to help walk the
s/w-engineering dog and to write Motif/X/socket if the chosen platform
is UN*X, however.

So, from an engineering standpoint, what should the "future" look
like?

jps
-- 
Jack P. Starrantino     (215) 674-0200 (voice)
SEMCOR, Inc.            (215) 443-0474 (fax)
65 West Street Road     jps@semcor.com
Suite C-100
Warminster, PA 18974

Hello,

On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Jack P. Starrantino wrote:

> I suspect there are a fair number of lurkers here who code for a living
> and would be willing to contribute if someone/the_group can articulate
> a requirements statement and then push it to the design stage.

  As soon as PGP 3.0 is released I am planning on incorporating PGP into 
Pine, and start putting it into more programs, to increase the usage of 
encryption things before they go out.
  I am planning on adding a chat ability to a browser, and hopefully that 
will be encrypted, as well.
  Take care and have fun. (from a lurker)

==========================================================================
James Black (Comp Sci/Comp Eng sophomore)
e-mail: black@eng.usf.edu
http://www.eng.usf.edu/~black/index.html
**************************************************************************