LIST OF SHAME VOLUNTEERS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

As promised, below is the list of folks who have asked to be put
on Mr/Ms Anonymous' LIST OF SHAME.  In addition, I am including
one volunteer who supports Mr/Ms Anonymous...sort of.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LIST OF SHAME VOLUNTEERS

Dan Harmon
Jim Ray
Robby Havasy
Perry Metzger (didn't volunteer, exactly, but wrote:  "Perry, Who 
	is disappointed that he didn't make the "LIST OF SHAME", 
	but understands that perhaps he hasn't done enough to 
	oppose controls on cryptography. I'll work harder, and 
	hopefully you will denounce me soon."
Damaged Justice <frogfarm@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>
brianh@u163.wi.vp.com
Rich Graves
Brad Shantz
Kevin L Prigge
Jim Gillogly
Robert Hettinga
David Macfarlane
Brad Shantz
Mark Aldrich
Charles Gimon
Jamie Lawrence
Doug Hughes
David K. Merriman
Lucky Green
Raph Levien
Bill Frantz
Paul E Robichaux
Glenn Powers
Brian D Williams
"Vladimir Z. Nuri"  !!!!!

SUPPORTERS OF MR/MS ANONYMOUS

E. Clark, who wrote:

Subject: A vote for ANON's position [with reservations]

Supporters of the Leahy Bill are, to me, well-intentioned dupes.

I've lurked on this list under this and a previous usename since the 
list was a couple months old. I came here to learn crypto, not debate 
politics. And, while the urge has often been all but overwhelming, 
I've for most part kept my silence, prefering back channels to 
posting on the list.

The Politics of the Absurd has in the last year or three found me in 
agreement with figures on the national scene whose pockets I would
decline to piss were their balls on fire. Nor am I quite comfy siding
with anonymous in regard to the Leahy Bill, but...

I neither like nor trust the bill and, after the Digital Telephony 
Bill and its manner of passage, my trust in the good senator is zero.

I am still a little puzzled why there was so little discussion on the 
list of what Freeh might have told the congresscritters that long 
summer when he seems to have visited them all. Sort of makes this 
leftie wonder if, just maybe, the rightwing conspiracy boys who claim 
the unusual number of congressional dropouts was the result of FINCIN 
findings might not have stumbled upon a quarter-grain of truth.

While I applaud the efforts of those working for the cause in the 
political sphere, I have scant faith. Business will be on the side of 
privacy until it gets what it wants, then walk away from individual 
concerns for privacy, etc.

I've always enjoyed your posts and sense of humor. Apologies for 
going on at length.

e. clark
---


Comments, Anonymous?

E. Clark writes:
> I neither like nor trust the bill and, after the Digital Telephony 
> Bill and its manner of passage, my trust in the good senator is zero.

I spoke to a couple folks about this at the CDA hearings in Philadelphia
last week. Word on the streets from those who would know is that the
Leahy Bill has NOT A CHANCE IN HELL of passing, and so is worth
supporting to raise awareness of crypto.

After DT and Clipper, it's our chance to put Clinton and the DoJ on the
defensive for a change.

-Declan

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> E. Clark writes:
> > I neither like nor trust the bill and, after the Digital Telephony 
> > Bill and its manner of passage, my trust in the good senator is zero.
> 
> I spoke to a couple folks about this at the CDA hearings in Philadelphia
> last week. Word on the streets from those who would know is that the
> Leahy Bill has NOT A CHANCE IN HELL of passing, and so is worth
> supporting to raise awareness of crypto.

I did a little weekend poking, I can confirm this.  If the Leahy bill 
passes, it will be a surprise (putting it mildly).

> 
> After DT and Clipper, it's our chance to put Clinton and the DoJ on the
> defensive for a change.
>

I suggest instead that everyone be nice and quiet.  If they get busy 
enough, this issue might not rear its ugly head for a few terms.

> -Declan
> 
> 

---
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

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 25-Mar-96 Re: LIST OF SHAME
VOLUNTEERS by Black Unicorn@schloss.li 
> I did a little weekend poking, I can confirm this.  If the Leahy bill 
> passes, it will be a surprise (putting it mildly).

Especially since there are only -- how many? -- 40 or 50 days left in
this legislative session.

> > After DT and Clipper, it's our chance to put Clinton and the DoJ on the
> > defensive for a change.
>  
> I suggest instead that everyone be nice and quiet.  If they get busy 
> enough, this issue might not rear its ugly head for a few terms.

It's too late, I fear. Today's article in the NYT, for instance, doesn't
exactly help keep this issue quiet.

-Declan

If the Leahy bill is unacceptable, what legistlation is necessary? I 
can't see how the use of cryptography in the commission of a crime needs 
to be a separate offence, but I could see how it could be treated as a 
special circumstance - that doesn't really needed a new law though.

I do feel that it should be possible for courts to sub poena crypto keys, 
but that doesn't really need new law either (4th and 5th ammendments 
become _really_ important though (hmmm- there advantages to writing down a 
constitution after all :)

Simon

---
They say in  online country             So which side are you on boys
There is no middle way                  Which side are you on
You'll either be a Usenet man           Which side are you on boys
Or a thug for the CDA                   Which side are you on?
  National Union of Computer Operatives; Hackers, local 37   APL-CPIO

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, Simon Spero wrote:

> 
> If the Leahy bill is unacceptable, what legistlation is necessary? I 
> can't see how the use of cryptography in the commission of a crime needs 
> to be a separate offence, but I could see how it could be treated as a 
> special circumstance - that doesn't really needed a new law though.
[snip]

Good question.

Along this line -- what are the penalties for withholding other types of 
possible evidence from investigating officers?  It seems that often the 
penalites for "computer crimes" are more harsh than for the "normal" 
version of the crime.  Is that the case with the penalties in Leahy's bill? 

______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs  --  richieb@teleport.com  --  psu07973@odin.cc.pdx.edu
http://www.teleport.com/~richieb --- Opinions are mine, not Teleport's
PGP key fingerprint:  1F A1 40 72 92 02 DE 7A  80 D0 5A 57 D3 1C 87 86

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, Rich Burroughs wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, Simon Spero wrote:
> 
> > 
> > If the Leahy bill is unacceptable, what legistlation is necessary? I 
> > can't see how the use of cryptography in the commission of a crime needs 
> > to be a separate offence, but I could see how it could be treated as a 
> > special circumstance - that doesn't really needed a new law though.
> [snip]
> 
> Good question.
> 
> Along this line -- what are the penalties for withholding other types of 
> possible evidence from investigating officers?  It seems that often the 
> penalites for "computer crimes" are more harsh than for the "normal" 
> version of the crime.  Is that the case with the penalties in Leahy's bill? 

I have personally been involved in cases involving fines of $75,000 per 
day for noncompliance with a grand jury subpoena duces tecum calling for 
the surrender of banking documents.

> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Rich Burroughs  --  richieb@teleport.com  --  psu07973@odin.cc.pdx.edu
> http://www.teleport.com/~richieb --- Opinions are mine, not Teleport's
> PGP key fingerprint:  1F A1 40 72 92 02 DE 7A  80 D0 5A 57 D3 1C 87 86
> 
> 

---
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

Excerpts from mail: 25-Mar-96 So, what crypto legislation.. by Simon
Spero@tipper.oit.u 
> If the Leahy bill is unacceptable, what legistlation is necessary? I 
> can't see how the use of cryptography in the commission of a crime needs 
> to be a separate offence, but I could see how it could be treated as a 
> special circumstance - that doesn't really needed a new law though.

Leahy's bill will not pass. Period. However, with the introduction of
this legislation comes a chance to get _our side_ heard by the unwired. 

-Declan

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> Leahy's bill will not pass. Period. However, with the introduction of
> this legislation comes a chance to get _our side_ heard by the unwired.

Hear hear. But I'm afraid that last should have been written in the past
tense. There it goes...

It would have been nice to have someone in the Congressional Record saying
something like, "While I don't agree with the implementation of this
specific bill, it is arguably less totalitarian than the current arbitrary
and unconstitutional policy."

-rich

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> Excerpts from mail: 25-Mar-96 So, what crypto legislation.. by Simon
> Spero@tipper.oit.u 
> > If the Leahy bill is unacceptable, what legistlation is necessary? I 
> > can't see how the use of cryptography in the commission of a crime needs 
> > to be a separate offence, but I could see how it could be treated as a 
> > special circumstance - that doesn't really needed a new law though.
> 
> Leahy's bill will not pass. Period. However, with the introduction of
> this legislation comes a chance to get _our side_ heard by the unwired. 

I know I sound like a FUDer, but I really don't think this is going to 
make much difference.  The key is going to be industry and business.

Yell at netscape.  No congressperson is going to listen to whinings 
from the public about the bill of rights in the face of the fanatic 
anti-crime temper of the United States when such an obscure subjection 
as encryption is at issue.

> 
> -Declan
> 

---
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

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, Simon Spero wrote:

> 
> If the Leahy bill is unacceptable, what legistlation is necessary? I 
> can't see how the use of cryptography in the commission of a crime needs 
> to be a separate offence, but I could see how it could be treated as a 
> special circumstance - that doesn't really needed a new law though.

This kind of legislation would be painfully unenforceable.  How do you 
know if crypto was used in the commission of a crime unless you can offer 
the plaintext to show that the content was criminal or in furtherance of 
a criminal act or conspiracy, >and< that the content was encrypted?

This kind of statute nearly requires escrowed encryption or the old 
standby, stupid crooks.  I'd be happy to see this pass alone because I 
think it would placate some of the screaming crypto-frady-cats on the 
hill much the way the cosmetic assualt "looking" weapons ban did, but I 
think this unlikely.

It's like criminalizing the destruction of bodies in furtherance of 
murder.  What's the point?  Just use obstruction of justice.

> I do feel that it should be possible for courts to sub poena crypto keys, 
> but that doesn't really need new law either (4th and 5th ammendments 
> become _really_ important though (hmmm- there advantages to writing down a 
> constitution after all :)

After doing some work in a somewhat related area (I'm about to release 
the workproduct to the list), I am more and more dubious as to the 
protections the 4th and 5th amendments will provide in these instances.

I think many people on the list here had the right idea generally.  No 
legislation is good legislation for crypto.  Really the ITAR 
applications are beseiged right now, and will probably fizzle out of 
their own accord, not to mention the fact that they are de facto moot.

In practice it is trivial to subvert ITAR for the purposes of 
worldwide crypto availability.

Someone just needs to get a foreign entity producing strong hardware 
encryption in Estonia (hardware IDEA would be nice) to capitalize on the 
markets in the U.S. and non-escrow jurisdictions in Europe and Asia.

If we have no-legislation and a foreign producer of strong crypto soft 
and hardware for the next 3 years, I think we are way ahead of the game.

Unfortunately, I think some version of crypto legislation is going to see 
passage in the next pair of years.  Leahy certainly isn't going to give 
up, and he may have a bit more momentum after an election year runs its 
course.

Whoever wins the election, I think you can expect to see even more 
aggressive bills from congress on the subject.

All it would take is one anti-trust case with encryption as a concealing 
method and people would be busting down doors at night looking for PGP.

> Simon
> 
> ---
> They say in  online country             So which side are you on boys
> There is no middle way                  Which side are you on
> You'll either be a Usenet man           Which side are you on boys
> Or a thug for the CDA                   Which side are you on?
>   National Union of Computer Operatives; Hackers, local 37   APL-CPIO
> 
> 

---
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

> I think many people on the list here had the right idea generally.  No 
> legislation is good legislation for crypto.  Really the ITAR 
> applications are beseiged right now, and will probably fizzle out of 
> their own accord, not to mention the fact that they are de facto moot.
> 
> In practice it is trivial to subvert ITAR for the purposes of 
> worldwide crypto availability.

	You've obviously never brought a crypto product to market
before.  Granted, worldwide *personal* use of crypto availability is
trivial, but not corporate.

-- 
Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-601-9777x3
Community ConneXion, Inc.			FAX:     510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest")		sameer@c2.org

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, sameer wrote:

> > I think many people on the list here had the right idea generally.  No 
> > legislation is good legislation for crypto.  Really the ITAR 
> > applications are beseiged right now, and will probably fizzle out of 
> > their own accord, not to mention the fact that they are de facto moot.
> > 
> > In practice it is trivial to subvert ITAR for the purposes of 
> > worldwide crypto availability.
> 
> 	You've obviously never brought a crypto product to market
> before.  

No, in fact, I have not.

What are the impediments to corporate marketing of crypto where the 
marketing and distrubting entity is foreign?  (I honestly don't know)

Granted, worldwide *personal* use of crypto availability is
> trivial, but not corporate.

Sufficently entrench personal use of crypto, and the personal/corporate 
use distinction ceases to exist.

> -- 
> Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-601-9777x3
> Community ConneXion, Inc.			FAX:     510-601-9734
> The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
> http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest")		sameer@c2.org
> 

---
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

> 
> No, in fact, I have not.
> 
> What are the impediments to corporate marketing of crypto where the 
> marketing and distrubting entity is foreign?  (I honestly don't know)

	As a US entity, Community ConneXion is marketing an
SSL-encrypting webserver based on the Apache-SSL developed by the
Apache Group (worldwide) and Ben Laurie (in the UK).
	As both Ben and I would like to maintain a similar product
both for domestic and international use, such that international
corporations may deploy the application worldwide within their
organization without compatibility problems, Ben has to write all the
code, because I can't send him anything. (I've written code to
incorporate new features, but once Ben writes code to incorporate
those features, I will end up using his code, in order to maintain a
stable codebase. -- duplicating effort.)
	As most OS vendors are located within the United States, it
requires a significant effort for an OS vendor to include the product
worldwide, because they need to contract out an outside US cd-pressing
and product build facility in order to build the international version
of their OS (or other application.. right now I'm concentrating on
getting OS vendors to bunlde the prodcut) which bundles our product.

	It's doable. It's not trivial though.

	ITAR does help, in that if Ben decides to commercialize his
product, we have a very convenient line which stops us from competing
with each other. He can't sell inside the US because of RSA patents. I
can't sell outside the US because of ITAR. ;-)

> 
> Granted, worldwide *personal* use of crypto availability is
> > trivial, but not corporate.
> 
> Sufficently entrench personal use of crypto, and the personal/corporate 
> use distinction ceases to exist.

	Not if some applications don't apply to personal use.

-- 
Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-601-9777x3
Community ConneXion, Inc.			FAX:     510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest")		sameer@c2.org

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, sameer wrote:

> > 
> > No, in fact, I have not.
> > 
> > What are the impediments to corporate marketing of crypto where the 
> > marketing and distrubting entity is foreign?  (I honestly don't know)
> 
> 	As a US entity, Community ConneXion is marketing an
> SSL-encrypting webserver based on the Apache-SSL developed by the
> Apache Group (worldwide) and Ben Laurie (in the UK).

[Legitimate logistical obsticles deleted]

> 	It's doable. It's not trivial though.

Phew.  I thought for a moment you meant legal problems.

Yes, I concede, there are significant logistical hurdles confronting the 
multi-jurisdictional crypto project.  One assumes, however, that the 
initial capital investment will be somewhat offset by the first in market 
advantage of the position.

Further, a entirely foreign production, say for chip manufacture, would 
probably make things easier.  I had specifically contemplated hardware 
applications.  Indeed, there are problems with both, but they don't stem 
from ITAR.

> 	ITAR does help, in that if Ben decides to commercialize his
> product, we have a very convenient line which stops us from competing
> with each other. He can't sell inside the US because of RSA patents. I
> can't sell outside the US because of ITAR. ;-)
> > 
> > Granted, worldwide *personal* use of crypto availability is
> > > trivial, but not corporate.
> > 
> > Sufficently entrench personal use of crypto, and the personal/corporate 
> > use distinction ceases to exist.
> 
> 	Not if some applications don't apply to personal use.

Are you talking specific licensing provisions, or implementation.  I 
don't follow.  (Though I'm fairly sure I'm missing something obvious).

> 
> -- 
> Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-601-9777x3
> Community ConneXion, Inc.			FAX:     510-601-9734
> The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
> http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest")		sameer@c2.org
> 

---
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

> 
> Yes, I concede, there are significant logistical hurdles confronting the 
> multi-jurisdictional crypto project.  One assumes, however, that the 
> initial capital investment will be somewhat offset by the first in market 
> advantage of the position.

	Yes, I would hope so.

> 
> Further, a entirely foreign production, say for chip manufacture, would 
> probably make things easier.  I had specifically contemplated hardware 
> applications.  Indeed, there are problems with both, but they don't stem 
> from ITAR.

	I see, yes.
> 
> Are you talking specific licensing provisions, or implementation.  I 
> don't follow.  (Though I'm fairly sure I'm missing something obvious).

	Well there are certain applications which personal users don't
really want to use. SSL webservers for example. Most individuals don't
have a need for an SSL webserver. RSA-in-hardware is also not needed
for most individuals, but high-traffic server applications which do
RSA operations really should start using RSA in hardware.
	Encrypted database applications (something I'm working on with
a friend) are another application which personal users don't really
care about, but corporate IS finds valuable. (Well, I hope they find
it valuable, otherwise our product won't sell.. the database guy says
he knows them well enough that they'll buy it though.)

-- 
Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-601-9777x3
Community ConneXion, Inc.			FAX:     510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest")		sameer@c2.org