Re: Beware of encrypted processors bearing gifts...

At 10:28 PM 5/24/97 -0400, Dave Emery wrote:
>	A three way encrypted handshake between an encrypted agent that
>was part of the OS and  a smart card and software at an ISP could be
>used to enforce an internet drivers license law for  example, with no
>packets being forwarded by the ISP without hard  authentication (even up
>to biometrics) of the user.  And it would be rather trivial to disallow
>use of "unapproved" software to communicate over the net, making
>enforcement of GAK much more complete.  One could even use such a
>mechanism to forbid use of any  uncertified software on a net connected
>machine, thus making it rather hard to use such rogue applications as
>PGP.

I strongly agree with you. While the motivation that lead to the
development of such processors stems probably from the desire to thwart
software piracy, it will make implementation of the "Internet Driver
License" that much easier.

[For those new to Cypherpunks, I consider the requirement for an Internet
Driver License as inevitable as the sun raising tomorrow morning. While the
event is technically in the future, it will occur with a certainty that it
may just as well have already happened in the past. Read the graphic novel
"Watchmen" if you don't understand what I am talking about. Sure, there is
a small but no-zero probability that the Earth will be vaporized before
sunrise by a timebomb left by aliens 3.5 million years ago. That's why I
wrote "as inevitable", as opposed to "inevitable".]

Smartcard readers and processors with encrypted instruction sets are just a
first step to the ultimate goal, requiring biometric authentication to the
applications on your machine. Some will claim they won't use such machines
and  stick to their old Pentium Pro's. I just threw out an old 286, because
I couldn't find a single person that wanted it for free. Your 200 MHz
Pentium Pro will be just as useful as that old 286 a few years hence. Sure,
it will still operate and you can even run some old programs on it.  But it
simply will be unsuitable as your primary machine. Instead, you will find
yourself using a box that runs code you can't possible figure out what it
does and requires biometric authentication for login.

Have fun,

--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

  Put a stake through the heart of DES! Join the quest at
http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm

>I strongly agree with you. While the motivation that lead to the
>development of such processors stems probably from the desire to thwart
>software piracy, it will make implementation of the "Internet Driver
>License" that much easier.

I don't agree.  Although some in D.C. and elsewhere might push for such
measure they would never pass constitutional muster.  And if they did there
would be enough taking civil disobedient action or greater to thwart such
measures.

--Steve


PGP mail preferred
Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
Key available on BAL server, http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schear              | tel: (702) 658-2654
CEO                       | fax: (702) 658-2673
First ECache Corporation  |
7075 West Gowan Road      |
Suite 2148                |
Las Vegas, NV 89129       | Internet: azur@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

        I know not what instruments others may use,
         but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt.

        SHOW ME THE DIGITS!

On Sat, 24 May 1997, Lucky Green wrote:

> At 10:28 PM 5/24/97 -0400, Dave Emery wrote:
> >	A three way encrypted handshake between an encrypted agent that
> >was part of the OS and  a smart card and software at an ISP could be
> >used to enforce an internet drivers license law for  example, with no
> >packets being forwarded by the ISP without hard  authentication (even up
> >to biometrics) of the user.  And it would be rather trivial to disallow
> >use of "unapproved" software to communicate over the net, making
> >enforcement of GAK much more complete.  One could even use such a
> >mechanism to forbid use of any  uncertified software on a net connected
> >machine, thus making it rather hard to use such rogue applications as
> >PGP.
> 
> I strongly agree with you. While the motivation that lead to the
> development of such processors stems probably from the desire to thwart
> software piracy, it will make implementation of the "Internet Driver
> License" that much easier.
> 
> [For those new to Cypherpunks, I consider the requirement for an Internet
> Driver License as inevitable as the sun raising tomorrow morning. While the
> event is technically in the future, it will occur with a certainty that it
> may just as well have already happened in the past. Read the graphic novel
> "Watchmen" if you don't understand what I am talking about. Sure, there is
> a small but no-zero probability that the Earth will be vaporized before
> sunrise by a timebomb left by aliens 3.5 million years ago. That's why I
> wrote "as inevitable", as opposed to "inevitable".]
> 

Well...they will TRY...

If this kind of thing gets through without a huge fight from the 
public in general and the crypto community specifically, then we
get exactly what we deserve.

I will be heading for some quiet island at that point.

All aboard for Vonuatu.
(though I hear its not that quiet these days)   8-)

Jim Burnes