Re: Rogue Governments Issuing Policy Tokens

From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
> The problem (for GAK) of "rogue governments" is this: a government such as
> Libya or Panama, henceforth to be known as "Rogueitania," issues policy
> cards to all of its citizens, and to all those visiting Rogueitania, and
> perhaps through the mail to anyone who pays some fee.

I don't think this would happen.  Some kind of secret information or
hardware is going to be needed to create policy tokens.  (Otherwise
anybody could make one.)  That means that HP, and therefore ultimately
the U.S. government, is going to have to approve those governments which
are allowed to issue such tokens.  HP will have to provide them some
special hardware or something to make them.  The tokens will only be
accepted if they have proper secrets inside them.

I can't see the U.S. allowing Libya and similar countries to create policy
tokens.  The whole point of this exercise is to prevent these countries
from being able to use strong crypto.  So they will certainly not be on
the approved list.

Does this represent an attempt to establish a de facto U.S. hegemony over
the world, where the U.S. government gets to decide which other governments
have access to crypto?  Not necessarily; other countries will still have
the option to use computers made outside the U.S.  The fact of international
competition will still exist.

If the HP initiative does become a widespread standard (which I think is
unlikely at this point) then we will see the same sorts of flight towards
non U.S. computers that we now see towards non U.S. crypto companies.
Why should an Israeli company buy an American computer with a policy chip
that is ultimately under the control of the U.S. government when they
can get one locally made which has no such restrictions?

And of course all this focus on hardware tokens ignores the fact that
the alternative of software-only crypto will still be present, both for
the domestic market and for the international market where the products
don't come from the U.S.  This will represent additional competition
which the HP proposal must face.

For these reasons I don't think the HP idea solves the export problem
for U.S. hardware and software makers.  And the response by opinion leaders
has ranged from ho-hum to negative, despite the self-serving cheerleading
by HP management.  Companies which try to sell computers with these chips
in them risk getting a "big brother inside" (to use Tim's very effective
slogan) reputation.  I think this initiative is going nowhere.

Hal

At 8:49 AM -0800 11/19/96, Hal Finney wrote:
>From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
>> The problem (for GAK) of "rogue governments" is this: a government such as
>> Libya or Panama, henceforth to be known as "Rogueitania," issues policy
>> cards to all of its citizens, and to all those visiting Rogueitania, and
>> perhaps through the mail to anyone who pays some fee.
>
>I don't think this would happen.  Some kind of secret information or
>hardware is going to be needed to create policy tokens.  (Otherwise
>anybody could make one.)  That means that HP, and therefore ultimately
>the U.S. government, is going to have to approve those governments which
>are allowed to issue such tokens.  HP will have to provide them some
>special hardware or something to make them.  The tokens will only be
>accepted if they have proper secrets inside them.

But even such "U.S. approval" is fraught with problems (for the U.S. and
for public relations). Some examples:

- Arab boycott of Israel...will U.S. be complicit in helping the machinery
of the boycott run? (Actually, H-P could run afoul of several U.S. laws...)

- Myanmar (Burma) wants the evil dissidents controlled (a case much
discussed by PRZ). Which side will the U.S. support?

(As noted in the Declan story, the machinery of having government issue
policy cards, if successful, essentially blocks dissidents and
revolutionaries from gaining certain powers. The U.S. _used_ to support
dissidents and revolutionaries in various countries...no longer, I guess.
The price of winning the Cold War: complacency.)

- Many countries trade with Cuba, while the U.S. does not. So, which side
of this dispute does a U.S.-approved policy token support?

(By the way, Canada is one such nation. If Canada gets the key to issuing
policy tokens, they can issue them to those travelling to Cuba on business.
This would make them a "rogue government" vis-a-vis U.S. policy. More
serious examples also exist.)

And so on. Except for a very few countries which are closely aligned with
U.S. policy on nearly every issue, most countries have internal and
external policies with which we as a nation have serious disagreements.

In fact, for nearly every country to which policy tokens are to be licensed
and approved, the U.S. would have to make some policy decisions which are
bound to offend one group or another. And take time. And raise issues here
in the U.S. Take any country, even nominal allies, and these internal
issues are very thorny indeed.


>I can't see the U.S. allowing Libya and similar countries to create policy
>tokens.  The whole point of this exercise is to prevent these countries
>from being able to use strong crypto.  So they will certainly not be on
>the approved list.

I mention Libya as an extreme example (the same example cited in the
Fiat-Shamir "is-a-person" example of rogue governments issuing passports).
The examples above are likely targets for policy card exports, though. The
issue is clear: the list of "fully-compliant" nations is short indeed, and
few nations are going to accept imports of U.S. technology in which the
U.S. government sets the policy on how and where the imports may be used.

I think this will kill "policy tokens" as a viable U.S. export. This,
actually, may be the expected outcome. ("Hey, we gave you permission to
export this stuff...we can't help it if no other countries allow their
citizens to import the stuff.")

>For these reasons I don't think the HP idea solves the export problem
>for U.S. hardware and software makers.  And the response by opinion leaders
>has ranged from ho-hum to negative, despite the self-serving cheerleading
>by HP management.  Companies which try to sell computers with these chips
>in them risk getting a "big brother inside" (to use Tim's very effective
>slogan) reputation.  I think this initiative is going nowhere.

Yes, ironic that the orginal "Big Brother Inside" logo I showed was of
course based on the "Intel Inside" logo...and now Intel is actually
involved in this mess. How appropriate.

Time to dust off those "Big Brother Inside" stickers someone had printed up
a couple of years ago.

--Tim May

"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> (As noted in the Declan story, the machinery of having government issue
> policy cards, if successful, essentially blocks dissidents and
> revolutionaries from gaining certain powers. The U.S. _used_ to support
> dissidents and revolutionaries in various countries...no longer, I guess.
> The price of winning the Cold War: complacency.)

I don't think it has to do with complacency.  US support for "dissidents and
revolutionaries" was definitely not based on revolutionaryism, nor on
"cold-war" policy support for democracy, as Noam Chomsky likes to drill into
our heads over and over.

> Time to dust off those "Big Brother Inside" stickers someone had printed up
> a couple of years ago.

I know that Intel has succeeded in forcing the "Linux Inside" logo and stickers
off the net on threats of trademark infringement suits.  I have a feeling "Big
Brother Inside" would make them even more upset.

Dave

"It is not enough to buy Intel, you must also learn to love Intel."

Besides, the Supremes have ruled that satire allows some degree of
copyright infringement.

Adam


David Wuertele wrote:
| "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
| > Time to dust off those "Big Brother Inside" stickers someone had printed up
| > a couple of years ago.
| 
| I know that Intel has succeeded in forcing the "Linux Inside" logo
| and stickers off the net on threats of trademark infringement suits.
| I have a feeling "Big Brother Inside" would make them even more upset.


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

> 
> "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
>> Time to dust off those "Big Brother Inside" stickers someone had printed up
>> a couple of years ago.
>I know that Intel has succeeded in forcing the "Linux Inside" logo and stickers
>off the net on threats of trademark infringement suits.  I have a feeling "Big
>Brother Inside" would make them even more upset.

     Question:

     If one were to start a "big brother inside" campaign against Intel as a 
form of _political_ protest against their (and the goverments) actions and 
policies, would it be considered trademark infringement, or could it be 
"protected speech" under the first amendment? 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

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

snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> writes:
> > "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> >> Time to dust off those "Big Brother Inside" stickers someone had printed up
> >> a couple of years ago.
> >I know that Intel has succeeded in forcing the "Linux Inside" logo and sticke\
> rs
> >off the net on threats of trademark infringement suits.  I have a feeling "Big
> >Brother Inside" would make them even more upset.
> 
>      Question:
> 
>      If one were to start a "big brother inside" campaign against Intel as a 
> form of _political_ protest against their (and the goverments) actions and 
> policies, would it be considered trademark infringement, or could it be 
> "protected speech" under the first amendment? 

Trademarks are not copyrights. There is no fair use for trademarks. In
addition, civil suits are not criminal trials. The USG can't throw
your ass in jail for making "big brother inside" stickers, but Intel
can sue your ass off.
In a related note, you may be safe from lible suits...

Jer

"standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew
 why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole

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

iQB1AwUBMpOZsckz/YzIV3P5AQFN0AL/RRUETlRQRgSsREu1xwYnBUSIQ+JAH0jq
chrtsiFeSKALFeuM0oDfSIR4q1WZ4krnmhISdog3bSkrm5eN6D4lsDB2NRofy1oZ
jLAfmuRHUW0A6Kt5nH+PViqNZqEjBL+G
=XMgA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> I mention Libya as an extreme example (the same example cited in the
> Fiat-Shamir "is-a-person" example of rogue governments issuing passports).
> The examples above are likely targets for policy card exports, though. The
> issue is clear: the list of "fully-compliant" nations is short indeed, and
> few nations are going to accept imports of U.S. technology in which the
> U.S. government sets the policy on how and where the imports may be used.

Most "dual-use" items are export-restricted to Lybia.  That means US
businesses will have trouble selling any computers or even things like
trucks to Lybia.  For crypto tokens not to be available there does not
seem to be a huge deal, in comparison with everything else.

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:

> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:33:51 -0800
> From: John Anonymous MacDonald <nobody@cypherpunks.ca>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Rogue Governments Issuing Policy Tokens
> 
> "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> 
> > I mention Libya as an extreme example (the same example cited in the
> > Fiat-Shamir "is-a-person" example of rogue governments issuing passports).
> > The examples above are likely targets for policy card exports, though. The
> > issue is clear: the list of "fully-compliant" nations is short indeed, and
> > few nations are going to accept imports of U.S. technology in which the
> > U.S. government sets the policy on how and where the imports may be used.
> 
> Most "dual-use" items are export-restricted to Lybia.  That means US
> businesses will have trouble selling any computers or even things like
> trucks to Lybia.  For crypto tokens not to be available there does not
> seem to be a huge deal, in comparison with everything else.

You've obviously never been to or heard of Brussels.

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

At 7:33 AM -0800 11/20/96, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
>"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
>
>> I mention Libya as an extreme example (the same example cited in the
>> Fiat-Shamir "is-a-person" example of rogue governments issuing passports).
>> The examples above are likely targets for policy card exports, though. The
>> issue is clear: the list of "fully-compliant" nations is short indeed, and
>> few nations are going to accept imports of U.S. technology in which the
>> U.S. government sets the policy on how and where the imports may be used.
>
>Most "dual-use" items are export-restricted to Lybia.  That means US
>businesses will have trouble selling any computers or even things like
>trucks to Lybia.  For crypto tokens not to be available there does not
>seem to be a huge deal, in comparison with everything else.

As I said in another message, and as others have commented, the specifics
of Libya are not the point. The point I was making--and I cited other
countries besides Libya--remains that any U.S. policy regarding sales to
other countries, with U.S. policies built in, must comprehend the reality
that these government will use policy tokens to their advantage, and that
many uses may not appeal to us.

The "rogue government" problem is discussed in crypto circles...one of my
main points is that the U.S. Administration has consistently failed to
address questions along these lines.

--Tim May



"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

David Wuertele wrote:
> 
> "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> 
> > Time to dust off those "Big Brother Inside" stickers someone had 
> 
> I know that Intel has succeeded in forcing the "Linux Inside" logo and 
> stickers off the net on threats of trademark infringement suits.  I 
> have a feeling "Big Brother Inside" would make them even more upset.

So? What if they do get upset?

See http://www.x86.org/

-rich