Denning backs away from GAK

"Encrypt expert revises views
Authorities crack codes on their own"

By Simpson Garfinkel, special to the Mercury News

"A key academic supporter of the Clinton administrations position in the
debate over controls on encryption software has found that the
scrambling techniques widely used today have not shielded criminals from
law enforecement authorities.  As a result, she is backing off from
her long-held belief that controls on strong encryption are essential
to fight crime"



http://www.sjmercury.com/business/compute/encrypt073097.htm


-- 
            Eric Murray    ericm@lne.com      ericm@nabletech.com
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

BTW, Will R did a piece a month or so ago on Denning's shifting stance.
Maybe I should call her up and press her for details.

-Declan


At 08:46 -0700 7/31/97, Eric Murray wrote:
>"Encrypt expert revises views
>Authorities crack codes on their own"
>
>By Simpson Garfinkel, special to the Mercury News
>
>"A key academic supporter of the Clinton administrations position in the
>debate over controls on encryption software has found that the
>scrambling techniques widely used today have not shielded criminals from
>law enforecement authorities.  As a result, she is backing off from
>her long-held belief that controls on strong encryption are essential
>to fight crime"
>
>
>
>http://www.sjmercury.com/business/compute/encrypt073097.htm
>
>
>--
>            Eric Murray    ericm@lne.com      ericm@nabletech.com
>PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27
>29 AF



-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

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

In <v03007803b0067a1a1c9e@[168.161.105.191]>, on 07/31/97 
   at 01:22 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> said:

>BTW, Will R did a piece a month or so ago on Denning's shifting stance.
>Maybe I should call her up and press her for details.

Well after that piece was done I recall he making statments supporting
some of the more Daconian bills floating around DC.

I serriously doubt that she has changed here stance on any of the current
Inet issuse mearly putting a different spin on them.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM+DDpI9Co1n+aLhhAQFQlgP/Ua5g6hEmeYzuGBxtN4RTy3pmzxwnJxHF
+WhpwehJEqr1hETL99ho4FR3uXibWCWTP+DNZ2p6129YB9fKmY/vt6AwkW6g10eV
Ga80IobScWLXiP6RTLdOxtsh0m6tnZN9KrBIcsNPAAttmuOmQ5NNF8Ney7ONnFbp
N7/oZ3cBt5s=
=JZic
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> rejected reports of D. Denning's change of
heart:

>And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled repudiation
>of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional grounds,  but only
>on the grounds that her study did not show that many criminal cases were
>much affected by the lack of key escrow.
>
>So what if they had?
>
>(Insert usual arguments here about how many consitutionally-protected
>rights affect criminal investigations, but that this is no reason to ban
>window shades, locks on doors, whispering, etc.)
>
>Denning and her allies can always support GAK in the future, when "new
>studies indicate that law enforcement is being severely hampered by the
>growing menace of unbreakable cryptography."
>
>I never trust utilitarian arguments on things of this importance.

	To note the obvious, the Constitutional argument cuts both ways,
with warranted access to "private papers," versus the Founding Fathers'
proto-privacy and their rude distrust of federal power.  (It's kind of like
the abortion debate, where the premise you start off with almost dictates
which conclusion you arrive at, many steps later.)  Denning's pragmatic,
utilitarian, arguments are useful, but I suggest they mask a deeper shift
of primacy among competing principles.

	Utilitarian arguments are historically (even in C'punks;-) used to
defend a pre-defined philosophical position.  (And anyone who thinks that
it would have been hard to tilt the Denning/Baugh study with reports of
crypto use by drug cartels and distributors, even within the US, is just
out of touch.)

	Of course, crypto has (and will in the future) muck up criminal
investigations!

	On the evidence her comments over the past four months, I think it
is clear Prof. Denning has had some profound second thoughts about ultimate
cultural values and the balance of power between the state and the
individual.   (Make your appointment, Declan! When Dorothy is ready to talk
about this, it will be _very_ interesting.)  Denning, like many on the
other side, is smart & idealistic.  This study and other recent statements
have her overtly balking at being herded along the pro-GAK path... at the
very time the US LEA chiefs are twisting every arm they can to demonize
free access to strong crypto.  That proves her to be thoughtful as well.
Not many standard-bearers cross from one side to the other in this debate.

	Dennings refusal to offer rote support for the LEAs now is itself a
major event in this debate, with significant implications in Congress.

	For players who operate at the level Denning has worked, I have a
gut sense that the international issues -- the multi-cultural,
multi-national, Merchantile side of the debate -- are often much more
important than they have been in the Stateside discussion, such as it is.

	Restructuring world commerce around "licenses" from various
national spy organizations is a disconcerting prospect for many, with
widely-varied political identities.  Also, Denning's middle-class trust in
American government agencies doesn't have a direct parallel in European
political culture -- and once people notice that, the contrasting views of
the state are often disconcerting.

	(Most countries, even in Europe, vividly recall foreign occupation
-- which gives a notable tweak to presumptions of bureaucratic Virtue.)

	Dorothy Denning will never march under a Libertarian flag, but
neither will I. There are other banners which are on the same side of the
barricades, guys.  No need to shoot all your allies until after the
Revolution.  And, if we win it together, you may need a consensus before
anyone shoots anyone, AP notwithstanding;-)

	Suerte,
		_Vin

"Cryptography is like literacy in the Dark Ages. Infinitely potent, for
good and ill... yet basically an intellectual construct, an idea, which by
its nature will resist efforts to restrict it to bureaucrats and others who
deem only themselves worthy of such Privilege."
_ A thinking man's Creed for Crypto/ vbm.

 *     Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin@shore.net>    *
  53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

At 9:54 AM -0700 7/31/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In <v03007803b0067a1a1c9e@[168.161.105.191]>, on 07/31/97
>   at 01:22 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> said:
>
>>BTW, Will R did a piece a month or so ago on Denning's shifting stance.
>>Maybe I should call her up and press her for details.
>
>Well after that piece was done I recall he making statments supporting
>some of the more Daconian bills floating around DC.
>
>I serriously doubt that she has changed here stance on any of the current
>Inet issuse mearly putting a different spin on them.

And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled repudiation
of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional grounds,  but only
on the grounds that her study did not show that many criminal cases were
much affected by the lack of key escrow.

So what if they had?

(Insert usual arguments here about how many consitutionally-protected
rights affect criminal investigations, but that this is no reason to ban
window shades, locks on doors, whispering, etc.)

Denning and her allies can always support GAK in the future, when "new
studies indicate that law enforcement is being severely hampered by the
growing menace of unbreakable cryptography."

I never trust utilitarian arguments on things of this importance.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May writes:
> 
> At 9:54 AM -0700 7/31/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >In <v03007803b0067a1a1c9e@[168.161.105.191]>, on 07/31/97
> >   at 01:22 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> said:
> >
> >>BTW, Will R did a piece a month or so ago on Denning's shifting stance.
> >>Maybe I should call her up and press her for details.
> >
> >Well after that piece was done I recall he making statments supporting
> >some of the more Daconian bills floating around DC.
> >
> >I serriously doubt that she has changed here stance on any of the current
> >Inet issuse mearly putting a different spin on them.
> 
> And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled repudiation
> of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional grounds,  but only
> on the grounds that her study did not show that many criminal cases were
> much affected by the lack of key escrow.


Her support for GAK was also on 'utilitarian' grounds- she beleived 
law enforcement's claims that crypto prevented them from catching criminals.

This new study sounds like it pokes large holes in Freeh etc's main
justification of GAK.   That's just fine with me.  Ms Denning may change
her mind again later, but this is useful right now.  Especially since
Denning was the only respected cryptographer who sided with GAK.


> I never trust utilitarian arguments on things of this importance.

Others do, especially those "driven to compromise" folk up on the hill
in Washington.

Yea, it'd be great if she suddenly got religion and started upholding
the constitution, but this is still better than I would have hoped for.



-- 
            Eric Murray    ericm@lne.com      ericm@nabletech.com
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Eric Murray wrote:

> Her support for GAK was also on 'utilitarian' grounds- she beleived 
> law enforcement's claims that crypto prevented them from catching criminals.
> 
> This new study sounds like it pokes large holes in Freeh etc's main
> justification of GAK.   That's just fine with me.  Ms Denning may change
> her mind again later, but this is useful right now.  Especially since
> Denning was the only respected cryptographer who sided with GAK.

It serves only to prove two points:

	a. She's a government mouthpiece interested only in what will
	   serve big brother.  She will support whatever they are willing
 	   to.  Her backing off only shows their admittance that GAK
	   isn't going to bring any ROI.

	b. GAK is stupid and they're admiting it. (Placing back doors
	   is doubly stupid because someone other than the TLA's might
	   find their way and break open the whole thing if it's done
	   as a back door, or someone will be bribed to release the
	   escrowed keys.)

I offer the above as points because of all the recent exports of 128 bit
cyphers being allowed.  (It is possible they've other limitations they're
not allowed to tell us about such as the same string being encrypted in
all communications, or limits on PRNG's, but we don't know yet.)

The side note that Freeh supports GAK, but she doesn't only shows that
they speak for different agencies.  We know which one Freeh speaks for, we
believe we know who she speaks for.

If the whole point of GAK is to catch stupid criminals anyway, it will
lose.  The only criminals that aren't going to be caught are the smart
ones.   We've argued this with her for years, but she's stuck to her party
line, and all of a sudden she changes the party line.  People don't change
their minds without reason, and an NSA mouth piece isn't likely to defect
and live to talk about it or reverse their position publically.

This might add some weight to the recent "leak" about the NSA being able
to break 128 bit cyphers in 30 minutes, then again who really knows? Could
be conspiracy theories, or FUD.  IMHO this is bullshit unless they've a
working quantum computer... (Still, maybe it's time to push the envelope
again just to be sure.  Anyone have a 256 bit version of IDEA? or shall we
go the 3DES way and produce 3IDEA? :)

> Yea, it'd be great if she suddenly got religion and started upholding
> the constitution, but this is still better than I would have hoped for.

Ha!  As likely as Dr. Vulis having tea and crumpets with Tim in a London
tea house and talking about how lovely the weather is. :)

I saw her speak a while back on these issues here in NYC... I've got a
tape of it, but haven't had a chance to transcribe it yet.  Believe me,
she doesn't have "religion," she doesn't give a rats ass about the
Constitution.  IMHO, she's wearing sheep's clothing and bleeting, but them
fangs are still there, and sharp as ever.

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    |Prying open my 3rd eye.  So good to see |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were      |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run  |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were....            |.....
======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

At 6:54 PM -0700 8/1/97, Bill Stewart wrote:
>>Tim May writes:
>>> And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled
>>> repudiation of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional
>>> grounds, but only on the grounds that her study did not show that many
>>> criminal cases were much affected by the lack of key escrow.
>
>That's fine - if we wanted people to oppose crypto-censorship on
>moral or political grounds, we could ask the ACLU or EFF or CypherpunkCabal.
>Professor Denning's position has never been that eavesdropping and
>key escrow are required on the grounds of principle - it's
>Louis Freeh's job to say "we can't go upsetting Law Enforcement's
>traditional ability to eavesdrop on you, that'd be UnAmerican".
>Her important contributions to the Bad Guys' position has been to say that
>"Law enforcement needs your keys because there's no practical alternative",
>which reinforces the FBI's and NSA's arguments.  Now that she's saying
>"Law enforcement doesn't really need your keys, they're doing just fine
>without them, even in spite of all the insider talks they've given me"
>that knocks the utilitarian leg out from under them.  That's very good.

I disagree. A likely scenaria, I fear, is this:

* Denning's new study gets publicity

* Denning is "redeemed" and gains new influence

* GAK is delayed for this year

* Denning continues her study

* Next year's report finds solid evidence that crypto is being used to
hinder investigations, and has indeed had an effect.

(Hey, even dumb freedom fighters, er, "terrorists," will soon be using
strong crypto in ways that will surely affect investigations....)

* Denning's new conclusions, and her redemption, will generate support for GAK.

Classic "good cop, bad cop" and "bait and switch."

We've discussed this before. Just as the CDA was best attacked on
constitutional or basic issues, and not on whether porn was or was not
available on the Net, so, too, should GAK be attacked on constitutional or
basic issues, not on whether investigations have or have not been affected
by crypto.

Those who live by utilitarian arguments will die by utilitarian arguments.

--Tim May


There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May writes:

 > * Next year's report finds solid evidence that crypto is being used to
 > hinder investigations, and has indeed had an effect. 

This is obviously the strategy here.  If we lend credibility to the
examination of chicken entrails because the Sorcerer is saying something
we agree with, then we are powerless to denounce the process as flim-flam
when we wake up one morning and find ourselves no longer in the Sorcerer's
graces. 

Similarly, if we buy into the notion that national crypto policy should be
dictated by the needs of law enforcement, instead of fundamental
Constitutional considerations, because law enforcement is purring and
courting our favor, then it is only a matter of time before we find that
we have stupidly oiled the very machinery which will be used for our
beheading.

As Tim says, stick with Constitutional arguments, not utilitarian ones,
and beware of Wise Persons from the East bearing Gifts.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     enoch@zipcon.com   $    via Finger                       $
         {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}

On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Mike Duvos wrote:
> This is obviously the strategy here.  If we lend credibility to the
> examination of chicken entrails because the Sorcerer is saying something
> we agree with, then we are powerless to denounce the process as flim-flam
> when we wake up one morning and find ourselves no longer in the Sorcerer's
> graces. 

	Nonsense. 

	If we were dealing with rational people here, or even people 
irrational people who had an attention span & a memory, you would be right,
but we are dealing with the USG, and the electorate. Their attention span
won't get them across a street without loosing interest, and when they get
to the other side, they have forgotten what they were after any way. 

> As Tim says, stick with Constitutional arguments, not utilitarian ones,
> and beware of Wise Persons from the East bearing Gifts.

	Problem is, the constitution isn't worth the paper it is printed 
on any more.

Petro, Christopher C.
snow@smoke.suba.com

Tim May writes:
> At 9:54 AM -0700 7/31/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >I serriously doubt that she has changed here stance on any of the current
> >Inet issuse mearly putting a different spin on them.
> 
> And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled repudiation
> of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional grounds,  but only
> on the grounds that her study did not show that many criminal cases were
> much affected by the lack of key escrow.

Absolutely.  One wonders also if she may be concerned about loss of
reputation capital (i.e. her ability to be an effective advocate for
the NSA/LEA types).  The recent report by a panel of well-known
cryptographers arguing that key escrow is technologically and
economically infeasible has made her look pretty out of touch, since
she's been arguing exactly the opposite for years.


-- Jeff

At 1:49 AM -0700 8/1/97, Vin McLellan wrote:

>	To note the obvious, the Constitutional argument cuts both ways,
>with warranted access to "private papers," versus the Founding Fathers'
>proto-privacy and their rude distrust of federal power.  (It's kind of like
>the abortion debate, where the premise you start off with almost dictates
>which conclusion you arrive at, many steps later.)  Denning's pragmatic,
>utilitarian, arguments are useful, but I suggest they mask a deeper shift
>of primacy among competing principles.

But the Constitution has never been interpreted as placing prior restraints
on strength of locks, on shades over windows, etc. Nor on whispering or
speaking in code phrases to deter eavesdroppers.

(Nor, obviously, as the "warranted access" Vin speaks about _ever_ been
construed to mean that house keys must be deposited in advance ("escrowed"
in newspeak) with law enforcement.)


It is this prior restraint on the strength of security technology which is
at issue. If a proper warrant is gotten, the disclosure of papers may be
compelled. Whether they can be gotten depends on a lot of things. Just as
with physical papers, which may or may not be retrievable.


>about this, it will be _very_ interesting.)  Denning, like many on the
>other side, is smart & idealistic.  This study and other recent statements

Well, this is your opinion. I've read a lot of her stuff, and heard her
speak, and I can't agree with your characterization.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

>Tim May writes:
>> And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled 
>> repudiation of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional 
>> grounds, but only on the grounds that her study did not show that many 
>> criminal cases were much affected by the lack of key escrow.

That's fine - if we wanted people to oppose crypto-censorship on
moral or political grounds, we could ask the ACLU or EFF or CypherpunkCabal.
Professor Denning's position has never been that eavesdropping and
key escrow are required on the grounds of principle - it's
Louis Freeh's job to say "we can't go upsetting Law Enforcement's
traditional ability to eavesdrop on you, that'd be UnAmerican".
Her important contributions to the Bad Guys' position has been to say that
"Law enforcement needs your keys because there's no practical alternative",
which reinforces the FBI's and NSA's arguments.  Now that she's saying
"Law enforcement doesn't really need your keys, they're doing just fine
without them, even in spite of all the insider talks they've given me"
that knocks the utilitarian leg out from under them.  That's very good.

Won't stop the Bad Guys from trying, of course, but it's a good start.
On the other hand, it'll probably provide extra ammunition for the current
"legalize exports but criminalize use of crypto in crime" bills,
which gives the government more power than they've had before domestically
at the cost of losing the export battle which they were losing anyway.






#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#   (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)

At 08:22 PM 8/1/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>I disagree. A likely scenaria, I fear, is this:
>* Denning's new study gets publicity
>* Denning is "redeemed" and gains new influence
>* GAK is delayed for this year
>* Denning continues her study
>* Next year's report finds solid evidence that crypto is being used to
>hinder investigations, and has indeed had an effect.
...
>* Denning's new conclusions, and her redemption, 
>will generate support for GAK.

Tim, being more cynical than I am, is probably correct :-)
But still, we should take advantage of it when we can;
never miss a chance to use government statistics in ways that
annoy their originators....

Denning's previous big-publicity study was the interim report on
Clipper security (saying Skipjack was apparently quite strong),
which achieved its propaganda goals; the final report, which was supposed
to address the whole Clipper system, including the on-chip parts
and the key escrow process in the NSA/Mykotronix vault, was never
released, which I consider to be a substantial piece of intellectual
dishonesty.


#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#   (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)

Declan McCullagh said:

>BTW, Will R did a piece a month or so ago on Denning's shifting stance.
>Maybe I should call her up and press her for details.

While your at it why not ask if she (see her post to this list dated 1 
Sep 1996; and several EFF board members referred to in John Gilmores post 
to this list on 2 Sep 1996) are still having problems with anonymity. 

I didn't think she was a GAKer way back then so who knows which way the 
wind is blowing her now.  Garfinkel refers to her long held belief that 
controls on encryption were necessary so perhaps I am wrong and she was a 
GAKer all along although her reference in her email of 1 Sep makes no 
mention of it when she sought to distinguish her comments on anonymity 
from the issue of encryption thus:

"Please note that this is not the same as the right to *private* 
conversations and the use of encryption; this is the issue of being 
accountable for what you publish in public."

Then again her comments appeared to be a slipery as an eel in terms of 
meaning so who knows what the hell she means/meant/will mean at any 
particular point in time.

-- 
   .////.   .//    Charles Senescall             apache@bear.apana.org.au
 o:::::::::///                                   apache@quux.apana.org.au
>::::::::::\\\     Finger me for PGP PUBKEY            Brisbane AUSTRALIA
   '\\\\\'   \\    Apache