"Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"

Phill refers to the man who said "Gentlemen do not read each other's
mail", (Henry L. Stimson) as a twit.

I highly disagree. In some ways I regard him as our patron saint
(although the man was actually far from saintly and later as a member
of the Roosevelt cabinet adopted an opposite policy of aggressive
signals intelligence.)

Why is he our patron saint? He was a government official coming out
against invasion of privacy. Isn't that what we are all after, in the
end? The reason we deploy cryptography is to assure privacy for
all. We often refer to those who listen in on conversations
(regardless of who they are) as, in some sense, our
opposition. Therefore, is not Stimson's remark in closing down
Yardley's "Black Chamber" to be praised rather than attacked?

Perry

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


Perry writes:

> Why is he our patron saint? He was a government official coming out
> against invasion of privacy. Isn't that what we are all after, in the
> end? The reason we deploy cryptography is to assure privacy for
> all. We often refer to those who listen in on conversations
> (regardless of who they are) as, in some sense, our
> opposition. Therefore, is not Stimson's remark in closing down
> Yardley's "Black Chamber" to be praised rather than attacked?

At the risk of sounding like an NSA apologist, I have to take issue with
Perry's position on this matter.  I see a distinct difference between
broad monitoring of a nation's citizens and focused signals intelligence
gathering in support of national security.  The Black Chamber was not
out to subvert the national communications infrastructure, or prevent
citizens from obtaining or developing cryptographic tools.  The Black
Chamber was there to cryptanalyze traffic from _governments_.

In other words, I see a distinction between Intelligence activities and
Law Enforcement activities.  Yes, I recognize that there is a gray area
where the two overlap; I believe, however, that signals intelligence is
still a necessary evil in the global environment.  Just saying, "Oh heck,
we don't some of the things the NSA does," and dismantling it is a bit
unrealistic, isn't it?

Cheers,
Phil

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

iQCVAwUBMQf3cX6yjLZHwr45AQGokQQApYsv5k1xY7AiMga30+NEPfdogSkIyoQj
8F1b9ZWCqUP7WIdjXUUVttQkpzlm2+v3NMMKp3sbsyLgf/sA+5sqO/S4C1HrKYdv
UbqvnwpxDQpwZxPvsoV7exTqvWrvSj4sNl3Ea09OxcJUVVzwnEgZBKupLW63Ju60
nQ3A8x9qK5I=
=Nbyu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> 
> Phill refers to the man who said "Gentlemen do not read each other's
> mail", (Henry L. Stimson) as a twit.
> 
> I highly disagree. In some ways I regard him as our patron saint
> (although the man was actually far from saintly and later as a member
> of the Roosevelt cabinet adopted an opposite policy of aggressive
> signals intelligence.)
> 
> Why is he our patron saint? He was a government official coming out
> against invasion of privacy. Isn't that what we are all after, in the
> end? The reason we deploy cryptography is to assure privacy for
> all. We often refer to those who listen in on conversations
> (regardless of who they are) as, in some sense, our
> opposition. Therefore, is not Stimson's remark in closing down
> Yardley's "Black Chamber" to be praised rather than attacked?

The crypto relevance of this post is tenuous at best :-).  Please keep 
your comments to relevant code or technical discussions of crypto.  This 
is *not* patronSaintPunks!  Come on!

For the humor impaired *this is a joke*.  Not flame bait.  Just trying to 
get Perry to lighten up a bit.


> 
> Perry
> 

Matt

>Why is he our patron saint? He was a government official coming out
>against invasion of privacy. Isn't that what we are all after, in the
>end?

There is a considerable difference between running a government and being an 
individual. It is not merely ethical for one government to read another's mail, 
it is a duty.

By not taking adequate steps to inform itself of the Japaneese intentions the US 
suffered the loss of a substantial part of the US fleet at Pearl Harbour. Had 
sufficient resources been avaliable the naval codes could have been cracked in 
time.  The closure of the Black chamber was a key reason why US espionage 
efforts were inadequate at the start of WWII.

Given the choice between the US Army and the CIA plus NSA I would choose the 
latter any day. The millitary hardware is useless without intelligence 
operatives. Unless Perry is advocating an absolutist pacifist stance I don't see 
that his stance is credible. I don't know many pacifists who oppose intelligence 
gathering. 

Diplomatic trafic has always been considered fair game. Long may it remain so.


		Phill

hallam@w3.org writes:
> There is a considerable difference between running a government and
> being an individual. It is not merely ethical for one government to
> read another's mail, it is a duty.

I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to
steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad
for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the
government, too.

I have no evidence that becoming a member of a government agency
grants one absolution from sin. By my book, murdering, invading
privacy, and all the rest are bad, and I see no reason to expect that
just because you've been "ordered" to do them they become good.

> By not taking adequate steps to inform itself of the Japaneese
> intentions the US suffered the loss of a substantial part of the US
> fleet at Pearl Harbour. Had sufficient resources been avaliable the
> naval codes could have been cracked in time.

I suspect that mass surveilance of the entire U.S. population by the
government could in fact dramatically reduce crime. Should we do it?

I suspect that I could substantially improve my position in life by
listening in on other people's phone calls and reading their
mail. I might even be able to stop crimes directed against my person
by doing so. Should I do it?

I do not mean to pretend that there is an absolute ethics. I merely
claim that I do not find in my mind an easy distinction between the
acts of a government official under color of authority and the acts of
any other individual.

Perry

On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> hallam@w3.org writes:
> > There is a considerable difference between running a government and
> > being an individual. It is not merely ethical for one government to
> > read another's mail, it is a duty.
> 
> I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
> be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to
> steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad
> for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the
> government, too.

Er, I believe the above was clearly intended to mean "for one government
to read another government's mail." 

...
> I do not mean to pretend that there is an absolute ethics. I merely
> claim that I do not find in my mind an easy distinction between the
> acts of a government official under color of authority and the acts of
> any other individual.

How about:

It is the ethical duty of a responsible government to read other 
government's mail, absent any treaties or gentlemen's agreements to the 
contrary.

It is the ethical duty of a responsible government not to read its own 
citizens' mail without specific probable cause that a crime has occurred 
or is imminent.

It is the ethical duty of responsible citizens to read their own
government's mail, to ensure that their government is behaving ethically. 

The knotty bits concern how much of its own mail the government needs to
disclose, because you can't really disclose it to your own citizens
without effectively disclosing it to the whole world. And how much the 
government can lie, cheat, and steal in purely international affairs. I'd 
answer "a lot" to both.

-rich
 Fucking Statist

Rich Graves writes:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
> > be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to
> > steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad
> > for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the
> > government, too.
> 
> Er, I believe the above was clearly intended to mean "for one government
> to read another government's mail." 

I'm funny in more ways than one. I don't believe in the existence of
"Governments". 

I'm sure that most people seem to believe in this quasi-Divine Being,
of course. A lot of people seem to have constructed temples to some
Holy Being that they refer to as "The Government", made of marble and
steel and glass (often in the manner of temples constructed in ancient
times to Jove or Apollo). There are strange rites associated with the
worship and sustenance of this Divine Entity, such as the ritual
sacrifice of vast amounts of our wealth. There are a a bunch of people
that walk around in these temples, whom one might characterize as the
priests of this cult, and they are supposedly imbued with astonishing
extraordinary powers by virtue of association with this Divine Entity,
but when I glance at them I usually see only ordinary humans, with no
visible stigmata of their association with this extracorporeal Holy
Being worshiped by the body of the people.

In any case, we are here expected to believe that it is okay if the
Secular God of our land mass, our Government, spies on the Secular
Gods of other land masses. However, viewed from my perspective, when
"the Government" of our land listens in on "another Government's"
communications, from what I can tell what is happening is that
individual humans in the guise of High Priests converge at their
temple in Fort Meade for the purpose of listening in on conversations
between individuals humans elsewhere who are associated with other
Government cults in some sort of ordained capacity. One might argue
that this discourtesy between the followers of rival cults is not
something for we, the arch-atheists, to care about, but I must note
that in principle what is going on is the same -- people are listening
in on other people's communications -- not the Divine Governmental
Being itself listening in on the communications of other Divine
Governmental Beings. These Divine Governmental Beings don't
exist. Only the humans claiming the authority of the Divine
Governmental Beings exist.

So, in summary, if we believe that it is wrong for our fellow humans
to tap phones and listen in on the communications of other humans, I
see no reason to believe in an exception granted to some humans
associated with the Government Cult of our land mass to listen in on
humans associated with the Government Cult of another land mass.

> It is the ethical duty of a responsible government to read other 
> government's mail, absent any treaties or gentlemen's agreements to the 
> contrary.

This might be fine were there such a creature as a Holy Governmental
Being that wished to listen in on other Holy Governmental Beings, but
just as one never actually could prove the existance of the Capitoline
Jove in spite of the great temple that the Romans built to Him, so too
I find no evidence for the existance of the Holy Governmental Being in
spite of the fervor of the followers who have built the great marble
temples in the manner of the Romans all over Washington and other
provincial capitals throughout the Empire, pardon, the land mass we
call the United States.

Perry

<< "I don't believe in governments">>

  "Pray for the preservation of the government, other wise men would each 
each other alive" - Talmud.

No visible stigmata, eh?   How many elections have you won, Perry?  (I 
only use the honorific sobriquet "Honorable" when addressing folks who've 
won an election.  In my book, a cabinet secretary ain't an Honorable). 
How many oaths have you sworn to protect and defend the constitution?


Alan Horowitz
alanh@norfolk.infi.net

On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Rich Graves writes:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > > I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
> > > be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to
> > > steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad
> > > for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the
> > > government, too.
> > 
> > Er, I believe the above was clearly intended to mean "for one government
> > to read another government's mail." 
> 
> I'm funny in more ways than one. I don't believe in the existence of
> "Governments". 

I agree. This post was very funny, in the normal sense of the word.

...
> In any case, we are here expected to believe that it is okay if the
> Secular God of our land mass, our Government, spies on the Secular
> Gods of other land masses. However, viewed from my perspective, when
> "the Government" of our land listens in on "another Government's"
> communications, from what I can tell what is happening is that
> individual humans in the guise of High Priests converge at their
> temple in Fort Meade for the purpose of listening in on conversations
> between individuals humans elsewhere who are associated with other
> Government cults in some sort of ordained capacity. One might argue
> that this discourtesy between the followers of rival cults is not
> something for we, the arch-atheists, to care about, but I must note
> that in principle what is going on is the same -- people are listening
> in on other people's communications -- not the Divine Governmental
> Being itself listening in on the communications of other Divine
> Governmental Beings. These Divine Governmental Beings don't
> exist. Only the humans claiming the authority of the Divine
> Governmental Beings exist.

Therefore, to ordain myself Devil's Advocate Being, is it not wrong, in
principle, for us human beings to inquire into the affairs of the humans
claiming the authority of Divine Governmental Beings? Are not the actions
of the Fort Meade Beings a matter for their own personal conscience,
absent any immediate, *direct* impact on us that would justify an
appropriate reaction, be it fight, flight, or encryption? Please assume no
funny theological beliefs in the existence of other Non-Divine Beings, or
sympathy therewith. 

Of course, on individual principle, I quite agree with you, which is why I
do not believe I could ever become a cleric or even disciple of any odd
religion. I'd really suck as a soldier, too.

However, of Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, Motesquieu, and Locke, I find Hobbes
the most logical. People just suck, and ethics aren't enough. Karl Marx 
and Jim Bell talk about the withering away of the government, but what 
they're really talking about looks like a new and more onerous form of 
government to me. There is a need for force, and I much prefer a balance 
of powers to either unified world government or unorganized individual 
force.

Clearly there is room for maneuver as to how to organize the threat and
use of force, and most people, myself included, do not like the current 
alignment of forces. We can choose multilateral disarmament, or 
deterrence. 

Any time you talk about the organized deterrence of "Bad" behavior,
whether it comes from the NSA or the Cypherpunk Cabal, you're talking
about a system of government. 

-rich
 Fucking Statist

Perry E. Metzger writes:

>I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
>be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to
>steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad
>for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the
>government, too.

I do not see anything funny, but you are at odds with the Constitution,
where the people have granted the government certain rights that they have
not granted to themselves. But it seems we may be making progress at
getting those rights ourselves.

Perry writes,

>I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
>be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to
>steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad
>for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the
>government, too.

This statement commits the logical falacy of type incompatibility. Sets of 
objects are not the same as objects. Organisations of people have different 
characteristics to people. To accord the same rights to idividuals is to ignore 
the different chaqracteristics of the organisation over the group. In most cases 
we would ascribe fewer individual liberties to groups than to individuals. The 
individual may have freedom of speech but the government official does not. It 
is generally undesirable for military personel to enter into party politics, 
thus it is generally undesirable for such people to take part in party political 
broadcasts.

On the other hand there are casses in which we would wish to give the government 
more power than the individual. We give the government the right to raise 
taxation for example.

Thus Perry is not only a funny sort of person, he is also entirely negating the 
argument that Mill puts forward in "on Liberty", namely that the interests of 
the government and people are not as opposed as might appear, that it is 
possible to divide liberties into those which the state must excercise in order 
to protect the liberty of the population in general and those which the 
individual needs to protect themselves from government and other interference.

If we take Perry's argument seriously we effectively deny the legitimacy of any 
government. This is not good for Perry's argument for it is clearly legitamate 
to read the mail of a party which is illegitamte [an evil oppressor of the 
people, restraint on the exploitation of ecconomic power, restraint on free 
capitalism, tool of the borgeoise classes, people of all lands untie! you have 
nothing to lose but your chains...]


		Phill

As previously noted, we've drifted off charter, so I will answer in
private mail.

.pm

hallam@w3.org writes:
> Perry writes,
> 
> >I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
> >be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to
> >steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad
> >for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the
> >government, too.
> 
> This statement commits the logical falacy of type incompatibility. Sets of 
> objects are not the same as objects. Organisations of people have different 
> characteristics to people. To accord the same rights to idividuals is to igno
re 
> the different chaqracteristics of the organisation over the group. In most ca
ses 
> we would ascribe fewer individual liberties to groups than to individuals. Th
e 
> individual may have freedom of speech but the government official does not. I
t 
> is generally undesirable for military personel to enter into party politics, 
> thus it is generally undesirable for such people to take part in party politi
cal 
> broadcasts.
> 
> On the other hand there are casses in which we would wish to give the governm
ent 
> more power than the individual. We give the government the right to raise 
> taxation for example.
> 
> Thus Perry is not only a funny sort of person, he is also entirely negating t
he 
> argument that Mill puts forward in "on Liberty", namely that the interests of
 
> the government and people are not as opposed as might appear, that it is 
> possible to divide liberties into those which the state must excercise in ord
er 
> to protect the liberty of the population in general and those which the 
> individual needs to protect themselves from government and other interference

On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
> be able to do anything that individuals cannot.

   So violent criminals should never be jailed?

Alan Horowitz writes:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
> > be able to do anything that individuals cannot.
> 
>    So violent criminals should never be jailed?

I didn't say that.

Feel free to draw obvious conclusions about my political beliefs,
however, this isn't politicotheorypunks, so it probably isn't the
right place to discuss this in detail.

Perry

I might suppose that a significant reason why the nuclear arms race did 
not come to blows was the balance of espionage between NSA/CIA/KGB etc. 
With accurate information on your enemy, one is less likely to be 
panicked into a preemtive strike.

Jay Holovacs <holovacs@ios.com>
PGP Key fingerprint =  AC 29 C8 7A E4 2D 07 27  AE CA 99 4A F6 59 87 90 

On Thu, 25 Jan 1996 hallam@w3.org wrote:

> By not taking adequate steps to inform itself of the Japaneese intentions the US 
> suffered the loss of a substantial part of the US fleet at Pearl Harbour. Had 
> sufficient resources been avaliable the naval codes could have been cracked in 
> time.  The closure of the Black chamber was a key reason why US espionage 
> efforts were inadequate at the start of WWII.
> 
> Given the choice between the US Army and the CIA plus NSA I would choose the 
> latter any day. The millitary hardware is useless without intelligence 
> operatives. Unless Perry is advocating an absolutist pacifist stance I don't see 
> that his stance is credible. I don't know many pacifists who oppose intelligence 
> gathering. 
> 
> Diplomatic trafic has always been considered fair game. Long may it remain so.
> 
> 
> 		Phill
> 
>

> > By not taking adequate steps to inform itself of the Japaneese
 intentions the US 
> > suffered the loss of a substantial part of the US fleet at Pearl Harbour.


   I've read that FDR had a humint source warning of a Japanese strike on 
Pearl Harbor. I also recall reading that J Edgar Hoover received a report 
of a diplomatic conversation detailing the planned attack, but sat on it.

The first was in a monograph which was putting forth the proposition that 
FDR  ardently desired to become involved in the war.  By the way, FDR was 
the man who made wage income, subject to federal taxation for the first 
time.

I don't remember where I read the second.

To me, both stories are plausible.

On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:

> The first was in a monograph which was putting forth the proposition that 
> FDR  ardently desired to become involved in the war.  By the way, FDR was 
> the man who made wage income, subject to federal taxation for the first 
> time.
> 
> I don't remember where I read the second.
> 
> To me, both stories are plausible.

In fact, before FDR, wage income was taxed; however, it was one large 
check at the end of the yeraar (or the beginning of the next, really).

The high cost of WW II made it a necessity for the gvm't to have more 
money at a particular moment, and not wait for year-end.

I can't remember when the amendment constitutionalizing (is that a word) 
the income tax was passed; however, the income tax (and wage income was 
most certainly taxed) was AFAIK implemented by the end of the 19th century.

I might be wrong on dates here; the general principle still stands...
Jon Lasser
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lasser                <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>            (410)494-3072 
          Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
  You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.

> In fact, before FDR, wage income was taxed; however, it was one large 
> check at the end of the yeraar (or the beginning of the next, really).

  I think this wrong. Read the definition of "income" before the WWII. 
Wages were considered to be an equal exchange for labor services 
rendered, not a "gain" (income).


> The high cost of WW II made it a necessity for the gvm't to have more 
> money at a particular moment, and not wait for year-end.

    Not so. Govt has been able to print fiat money at will since the Fed 
Reserve was founded in 1913.




> the income tax was passed; however, the income tax (and wage income was 
> most certainly taxed) was AFAIK implemented by the end of the 19th century.

     That income tax was overthrown by the Supreme Court as not being 
apportioned amongst the states, as required by the Constitution.

     Technically, the income tax is an excise, not a tax. They aren't the 
same.

On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:

> > In fact, before FDR, wage income was taxed; however, it was one large 
> > check at the end of the yeraar (or the beginning of the next, really).
> 
>   I think this wrong. Read the definition of "income" before the WWII. 
> Wages were considered to be an equal exchange for labor services 
> rendered, not a "gain" (income).

I think you've been reading too many tax protester pamphlets without 
enough fresh air. Try posting the above to misc.taxes or misc.legal and 
you'll get several detailed responses.

Unfortunately, several will be wrong, because most knowledgeable people 
are turned off by the drivel, and the .moderated groups will reject 
postings on subjects that were long ago beaten to death.

> > The high cost of WW II made it a necessity for the gvm't to have more 
> > money at a particular moment, and not wait for year-end.
> 
>     Not so. Govt has been able to print fiat money at will since the Fed 
> Reserve was founded in 1913.

Er, yes, and fiat money means inflation. Real value takes real money.

> > the income tax was passed; however, the income tax (and wage income was 
> > most certainly taxed) was AFAIK implemented by the end of the 19th century.
> 
>      That income tax was overthrown by the Supreme Court as not being 
> apportioned amongst the states, as required by the Constitution.

And as a result, there was the 16th Amendment.

>      Technically, the income tax is an excise, not a tax. They aren't the 
> same.

?

Nevermind.

-rich

Gawd, I hoped this would die but I just have to get a dog in on
this now....please excuse

On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:

> 
> > In fact, before FDR, wage income was taxed; however, it was one large 
> > check at the end of the yeraar (or the beginning of the next, really).
> 
>   I think this wrong. Read the definition of "income" before the WWII. 
> Wages were considered to be an equal exchange for labor services 
> rendered, not a "gain" (income).

Sixteenth Amnendment, ratified 1913.  I believe it was introduced
as the Simmons Tarriff?   1% on incomes over a few k, incremental
to 7% for something like 500k.  One big check.  And income meant 
the same thing it does now, you know, the numbers without the 
minus signs:

Funk & Wagnalls, 1913  (sorry, no URL)

1. The amount of money coming to a person or corporation within a 
specified time or regularly (when unqualified, annually), whether
as payment for services, interest, or profit from investment;
revenue.

Webster's 2nd International, 1954 (still no URL, not for the 2nd...)
4. That gain or recurrent benefit (usually measured in money) which
proceeds from labor, business, or property; commercial revenue or
receipts of any kind....

Now, granted, Funk & Wagnalls went to press before there was such
a thing as an income tax...so it's possible that for thirty two
years income meant something different, and reverted....

> 
> > The high cost of WW II made it a necessity for the gvm't to have more 
> > money at a particular moment, and not wait for year-end.
> 
>     Not so. Govt has been able to print fiat money at will since the Fed 
> Reserve was founded in 1913.

Actually, no, they could print fiat money whenever they damn well
pleased, same as ever.  Reserve notes were originally 60/40 third 
party (paper) loans to federal gold.  True, all of a sudden it 
was Uncle Sam's name on the notes, but it wasn't just ink.

>      Technically, the income tax is an excise, not a tax. They aren't the 
> same.
> 

!!!??  Aren't they?  Maybe a little bit of squares-rectangles business,
but, if so, all excises are taxes....

Websters:
ex'cise
2. An inland duty or impost levied upon the manufacture, sale, or 
consumption of commodities within the country. [...] In the United
States the usual <i>excise</i> is a tax on the inland manufacture, sale,
or consumption of commodities or for licenses to follow certain
occupations, and these taxes are usually called <i>internal
revenue taxes</i>

wheee,

cpt
townsend@fly.net

On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Phill refers to the man who said "Gentlemen do not read each other's
> mail", (Henry L. Stimson) as a twit.
> 
> I highly disagree. In some ways I regard him as our patron saint
> (although the man was actually far from saintly and later as a member
> of the Roosevelt cabinet adopted an opposite policy of aggressive
> signals intelligence.)
> 
> Why is he our patron saint? He was a government official coming out
> against invasion of privacy. Isn't that what we are all after, in the
> end? The reason we deploy cryptography is to assure privacy for
> all. We often refer to those who listen in on conversations
> (regardless of who they are) as, in some sense, our
> opposition. Therefore, is not Stimson's remark in closing down
> Yardley's "Black Chamber" to be praised rather than attacked?

Sorta, but not really.

Relying on gentlemanliness to protect privacy is a fallacy.

Assuming that gentlemen run the government (or any other entity with power
over you) can be quite dangerous. 

Being a gentleman (or a lady, in the classical sense), though, is a Good
Thing. The fact that the well-informed people on this list tend to be good
ladies and gentlemen is a Very Good Thing.

I believe that the choice not to read other people's personal mail is an
ethical imperative, since we do not have and probably can not have total
privacy enforced by technology and law alone. Sure, strong crypto helps,
and should be spread, but there will always be back doors and
implementation bugs, and in the worst case, most people will give in to
moderate torture. 

It's hard to say what the ethical role of individuals in the government
(or Jim Bell's "assassination politics" organization, which quacks like a
government for me) is. The realist (Morgenthau, Fromkin, Krasner) school
of IR, not to mention Machiavelli, holds that it is an ethical imperative 
to lie, cheat, and steal to further the national interest.

A diplomat was defined, by whom I don't recall, as "a gentleman sent
abroad to lie for his country." 

-rich

Rich Graves writes:
> Relying on gentlemanliness to protect privacy is a fallacy.

Of course. The reason we study cryptography is because we can't trust
that people will behave like "gentlemen". However, is not the goal
here to assure that communications can be untappable and privacy
assured to all that wish to have privacy?

Perry

On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> 
> Phill refers to the man who said "Gentlemen do not read each other's
> mail", (Henry L. Stimson) as a twit.
> 
> I highly disagree. In some ways I regard him as our patron saint
> (although the man was actually far from saintly and later as a member
> of the Roosevelt cabinet adopted an opposite policy of aggressive
> signals intelligence.)
> 
> Why is he our patron saint? He was a government official coming out
> against invasion of privacy. Isn't that what we are all after, in the
> end? The reason we deploy cryptography is to assure privacy for
> all. We often refer to those who listen in on conversations
> (regardless of who they are) as, in some sense, our
> opposition. Therefore, is not Stimson's remark in closing down
> Yardley's "Black Chamber" to be praised rather than attacked?
> 
> Perry
> 

Unfortunately what he did was take the emphasis away from personal 
empowerment and personal responsibility for privacy and put it at the 
mercy of some creed or moral stand which had:

1> No common calling or degree of obervance in the population, or the 
intelligence communities at the time.
2> No structure, legal or otherwise, to provide for its enforcement.
3> The rather disturbing impication that no one need take pains to hide 
their private exchanges because a moral standard would protect them.

Instead, at least I always thought, cypherpunks stand for the personal 
empowerment and personal assurance of privcacy.

Indeed everything I can think of discussed here seems to revolve around a 
single goal-  making it easier, and simpler for a person to protect 
him or herself from unwanted intrusion into data he or she wishes to 
protect.  In fact, some goals, especially where transparency is 
concerned, seem to take the even more cynical view that the general 
population would be better off protected by crypto whether they know it 
or not.

Making crypto widely available to the general population, reviewing 
crypto for its implementation, basic skepticism about the protection 
afforded by new systems, basic skepticism for systems produced for 
commercial gain, basic skepticism for government produced systems, 
arguments for the lessening of government involvement in crypto, crypto 
standards, and a powerful dislike for the regulation of communication in 
all forms.  Perhaps most importantly, the production, review and 
discussion of "grass roots" crypto and communications security code.

All these, common themes on the list in my view, push us away from some 
blind notion that all is well in the world, and that man is basically 
good and will not intrude on his fellows.  All these insist that man is 
curious, probing, and that information is by its very nature nearly 
impossible to restrain without powerful methods.  All these insist that 
information will be exposed, be it by accident, malice, theft, by hook or 
by crook, or even well intentioned discourse, unless protected.  Isn't 
this the objection to ITAR?  It is folly to try and restrain information 
by legislation.

It should be clear that it is dangerous to depend on anything, be it 
government, industry, Lotus Notes, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, 
your best friend's promise, your wife's pillow talk, and least of all a 
misplaced faith in the decency of the common man, when your sensitive 
data is at issue.

In short, crypto helps those who help themselves to crypto.

I have no sympathy what-so-ever for those who lose the privacy of their 
data through negligence.  I believe they should be estopped from 
all complaint.  I believe they are great fools.  Moreover, I note that 
almost without exception, they try to place the cost of their 
missteps on the world at large, and the responsibility for policing 
privacy in the hands of others.  "It was not my fault that I left the 
letter sitting on my desk knowing that the spy convention was about to 
walk in," they whine, "Someone should DO something about all this 
immoral letter reading.  There ought to be a LAW.  How can >I< be 
expected to stop all these spies?"

Is it not clear that allowing this mentality to persist is an unwise and  
dangerous thing?

"Gentlemen do not read other's mail," while noble, clever, and a 
wonderful bit of public relations, ignores the basic reality of the 
modern age.  There are few gentlemen anymore, and even those occasionally 
stumble upon something they might not be entitled to examine.

Not only is crypto smart, but it distributes the (increasingly small) 
costs of protecting data properly.  It puts the burden on the 
least cost avoider, and the individual with the best access to full 
information.  "What is this data worth?  What would exposing it cost 
me?  How much is it worth to spend protecting this data?"  Who better to 
answer these questions than the owner of the data?  How easier to 
protect it than by the negliagable cost of encrypting it?

Not only does placing the burden of data protection on Government or 
society at large miscalculate and misplace the incentives for the 
protection of the data, it also places the selection of degree and method 
of protection on the wrong party as well.

In the end it also causes an undue amount of waste.

When Mr. May indicates that he does not use PGP very often because he 
finds it too much trouble to use for most mail, he is part of a process 
that in the aggregate must save millions of hours and dollars.  He is 
making a decision that data X is only worth an expenditure of Y to 
protect, and that PGP represents an expenditure higher than Y.  
Expenditure Y is thus saved, as would be unlikely in a government program.

Who among us would argue that government, the phone company, or the 
church would better make this judgment?

I would bemoan a world where gentlemen actually never read each other's 
mail.  Such a world would be so vulnerable to the "first market entry" 
into the business of mail reading as to be almost beyond salvage.  A 
certain First Minister of France comes to mind who, by his non-observance 
of the religious restricitons of the day and his alliance with 
traditional enemies of the Church, reduced Germany to 250 years of 
fragementation and assured that, for a time, France was the greatest 
power on earth.  "If there is a God," it was said of him, "the minister has 
much to account for.  If not, well, he had a good life."

The evil snooping man is hero from one perspective.  He is the incentive 
to be risk averse.  He is the skeptic who says that the market is not 
efficient and bets against it and so makes it efficient once more.  Moral 
utopia of the kind that would see no peeping tom's is a fantasy, and the 
evil man a-plenty saves us from Germany's fate.

So then we should brand Mr. Stimpson as a fool, and a liar.  Or at best, 
perhaps a convert who realized quickly (or not so quickly) the error of his 
ways and fell into proper line in his later embrace of signals intelligence.

At the very least we might apply a less optimistic creed.

He who builds on the people builds on mud.

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information