Re: Political News from Wired News

In a message dated 97-09-06 07:15:18 EDT, vznuri@netcom.com (Vladimir Z.
Nuri) writes:

<< maybe I'm not following closely enough, but I haven't seen a *single* 
 reference. that's really eerie. can't we get a *single* 
 senator to bring up that issue? >>

me neither... it's fucking mind-boggling....
and where's all the 'censorship' people????
it's like -- no one can make the 'connection' ....
the CDA and FCA lists are dead ... not a word ...
how can we all have wet powder at the same time?

is Leahy saying anything? .... i'll find his site and see.....

ldm

At 7:54 AM -0700 9/6/97, Syniker@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 97-09-06 07:15:18 EDT, vznuri@netcom.com (Vladimir Z.
>Nuri) writes:
>
><< maybe I'm not following closely enough, but I haven't seen a *single*
> reference. that's really eerie. can't we get a *single*
> senator to bring up that issue? >>
>
>me neither... it's fucking mind-boggling....
>and where's all the 'censorship' people????
>it's like -- no one can make the 'connection' ....
>the CDA and FCA lists are dead ... not a word ...
>how can we all have wet powder at the same time?

I didn't see Detweiler's original message ('til just now), but I think this
is wrong, the "I haven't seen a *single*  reference" (to the
constitutionality of mandatory key escrow).

In some of the accounts of the Freeh-Feinstein-etc. colloquy, there were
mentions that mandatory key escrow probably would be desirable, but
probably not be possible. (I took this to mean they, including Freeh,
recognized it would be unconstitutional).

Of course, then the draft text of the GAK bill floated by the next day, and
it of course contained no references to constitutionality (not
surprisingly, as draft bills are not self-analyses).

Despite my cynicism, I'd expect the courts to issue an immediate stay on
enforcement on such a law, as happened with the CDA. With probably an
expedited hearing before the Supreme Court. As so many have noted, it seems
to be a slam dunk infringement on the right to speak freely and in whatever
language one wishes. And some 4th and 5th and other involvements.

It may be a stalking horse. A threat. Designed to force a compromise. "If
you don't pass McCain-Kerrey, this is what you'll get."

A helluva way to run a country, er, a world.

But look on the bright side: the militias and other patriot groups are
getting a huge bounce out of this. Stay far away from the nests of vipers.
Jefferson's wisdom that we need a revolution every generation or so is
apt...though it's been about 180 years too long.

Now even those, like Sternlight, who claimed the government would never
require key escrow, have to admit we were right all along.

--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."

>me neither... it's fucking mind-boggling....
> >and where's all the 'censorship' people????
> >it's like -- no one can make the 'connection' ....
> >the CDA and FCA lists are dead ... not a word ...
> >how can we all have wet powder at the same time?
> 

The CDA list has been moribund since its inception. A waste of time. My
list, f-c-a, has covered recent crypto events exhaustively. Even those who
are far from cypherpunkish in their views enjoy it; Mike Nelson, a former
White House crypto-lobbyist, told me at my party yesterday that it was the
best list of its type out there.

http://www.well.com/~declan/fc/

-Declan

I am not sure how serious the proposed FBI-backed bill is.  It may
just be intended as a bargaining chip.  Or perhaps its sponsors are
as clueless about contitutional law as they are about cryptography and
how computers work.

It is conceivable that the courts might uphold (a carefully drafted)
law regulating the _use_ of cryptographic software, but the proposed
bill does not do that.  Instead it provides:

        (b) As of January 1, 1999, it shall be unlawful for any
        person to manufacture for sale or distribution within
        the U.S., distribute within the U.S., sell within the
        U.S., or import into the U.S., any product that can be
        used to encrypt communications or electronic
        information, unless that product:

         (1) includes features, such as key recovery, trusted 
         third party compatibility or other means, that

          (A) permit immediate decryption upon receipt of
          decryption information by an authorized party without
          the knowledge or cooperation of the person using such
          encryption product; and

          (B) is either enabled at the time of manufacture,
          distribution, sale, or import, or may be enabled by the
          purchase or end user; or

         (2) can be used only on systems or networks that include
         features, such as key recovery, trusted third party
         compatibility or other means, that permit immediate
         decryption by an authorized party without the knowledge
         or cooperation of the person using such encryption
         product.
 
But notice that the ``products'' that are described here are actually
software, are computer programs.  (I suppose that some products could
be physical devices with the programs hard-wired or in firmware, and
to the extent that there are such devices the following analysis may
not be applicable.)

Now, although it is possible that Judge Freeh and Senator Feinstein are
not aware of the fact, computer programs are written and published, and
they certainly are not ``manufactured'' in any accepted meaning of that
word, and their writing and publication is---as Judge Patel just held
once again---protected by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution like any other writing or publication.  It may, as I said,
be possible under the Constitution to regulate the use of cryptographic
software, but to forbid the publication (distribution, sale, or import)
of software because its content is unpleasing to the government is a
blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Yet the draftsmen of the Bill do not purport to regulate the use of
cryptographic software, they only purport to forbid its publication.

Which I find strange.

What I also find strange is that the ardent opponents of the CDA do
not seem much disturbed by such a proposed violation of the First
Amendment, or by the present constitutional violations embodied in the
``export'' regulations on encrption software that are being challenged
in the _Bernstein_ and _Junger_ cases.  Somehow those who care about
the right of programmers to express their ideas and to publish the 
software that they write have failed miserably in explaining to the
public, including those organizations that have traditionally been
concerned with protecting civil liberties, that programs are written
and published like any other text.

Part of the problem may be that those who publish software
commercially would rather be thought of---and regulated
as---manufacturers.  The last thing that they want is for people to
start claiming a first amendment right to read their programms and to
copy the ideas, or criticize the expression of the ideas, that are
buried there.  To the software moguls ``free speech'' must sound an 
awful lot like ``free software''.  And, however distasteful they may
find the proposed legislation, it at least has the virtue of making it 
illegal to import or distribute Linux.  And the nice thing about 
regulations of the sort proposed is that they raise insurmountable
barriers for any competitor who hopes to enter the market place for
computer software.

Another reason that there may not be so much concern among traditional
civil libertarians about the First Amendment implications of this
proposed crypto legislation or of the export regulations on encryption
software is that---as hard as it may be for the denizens of this list
to comprehend---they are simply not interested in cryptography.

But the constitutional issues raised by the proposed bill and the
export regulations on cryptographic software implicate all software,
not just encryption software.  For whatever else it may be, all
software is functional, and the government's argument comes down to
the claim that they can censor software because it is functional and
that ``functionality'' is not protected by the First Amendment.  Thus,
according to the arguments that have been made by the President
himself, it would be perfectly constitutional for the government, in
order to encourage efficiency and interoperability, to forbid the
publication of any software that does not comply with the Windows 95
``standard''.

Here is what President Clinton had to say when he transferred the
regulation of cryptographic software from the Department of State to
the Department of Commerce:

 Because the export of encryption software, like the export of other
 encryption products described in this section, must be controlled
 because of such software's functional capacity, rather than because
 of any possible informational value of such software, such software
 shall not be considered or treated as ``technology,'' as that term is
 defined in section 16 of the EAA (50 U.S.C. App. 2415) and in the EAR
 (61 Fed. Reg. 12714, March 25,
 1996)[.]
 
Don't you find that rather frightening?

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu   
     NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists

--Boundary..3984.1071713730.multipart/signed
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>        (b) As of January 1, 1999, it shall be unlawful for any
>        person to manufacture for sale or distribution within
>        the U.S., distribute within the U.S., sell within the
>        U.S., or import into the U.S., any product that can be
>        used to encrypt communications or electronic
>        information, unless that product:
>
>         (1) includes features, such as key recovery, trusted 
>         third party compatibility or other means, that
>
>          (A) permit immediate decryption upon receipt of
>          decryption information by an authorized party without
>          the knowledge or cooperation of the person using such
>          encryption product; and

Translation:  If I whisper in someone's ear in cyberspace, and I do not
immediately provide a transcript of the conversation to the government, I
am in violation of the law, and subject to whatever penalties it specifies.

>          (B) is either enabled at the time of manufacture,
>          distribution, sale, or import, or may be enabled by the
>          purchase or end user; or

This is stupid.  Do Freeh & Co. really think any self-respecting pedophile
or terrorist is going to use GAKed crypto products, or that if GAK can be
disabled, that people won't disable it?  I predict that this section is
going to quietly disappear from the final version of the bill.

>         (2) can be used only on systems or networks that include
>         features, such as key recovery, trusted third party
>         compatibility or other means, that permit immediate
>         decryption by an authorized party without the knowledge
>         or cooperation of the person using such encryption
>         product.

This is stupid also.  If my ISP uses GAKed crypto protocols, can I use PGP
5.0?  Freeh & Co. can immediately decrypt the packet stream.  Am I jailbait
if all they get is "--------Begin PGP Message--------"?  What about
encrypted .wav stego?

Tim May allegedly said:
>The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995, though apparently not being used in any
>significant way (yet), would have done some of the same sorts of things. If
>an organization was declared to be a terrorist-supporting organization,
>various sanctions would have applied to those who contributed money or
>certain other types of aid to such organizations. As others have noted, the
>Bureau of Thought Crimes has not yet issued a list of which organizations
>are considered terrorist.
>
>(One of my fondest hopes is that the Cypherpunks group makes this list. I'm
>hoping that enough support of various types provided to freedom fighters in
>the ZOG sections of Palestine will get us on this list. I'm itching for a
>confrontation with the jack-booted thugs, as you may know.)

I'm sure that the opposition to GAK expressed by most posters to the list
will be sufficient without our buying any Russian suitcase nukes for
Hezbollah.  However, I would caution you re provoking a confrontation with
the JBT's.  From a propagandist's perspective, they can smear your
reputation much more easily if you have a history of provocative actions
(like Jim Bell's stink bomb).  If you have never threatened anyone in your
life (even people who richly deserve it) and several armed individuals kick
in your door and you shoot them, you can look much more righteous in the
media than if you are constantly calling for the death of thousands.  OTOH,
if the situation is not avoidable, then "Give me liberty or give me death!"
 (In either case, pass the ammo.)

Jonathan Wienke

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is too hard to understand? (From 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution)

They came for the pedophiles using crypto, and I said nothing, because I am
not a pedophile.  They came for the drug dealers using crypto, and I did
nothing, because I am not involved with drugs.  They came for the
proponents of AP, and I did nothing, because I hoped that political change
could still be effected at the ballot box.  They banned non-GAK crypto, and
I purchased my quota of ammunition, because the Constitution guarantees
freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and protection against
unreasonable search and seizure.  They came for the users of non-GAKed
crypto, and I became the poster boy of a propaganda campaign denouncing
right-wing cryptolibertarians with guns.

PGP 2.6.2 RSA Key Fingerprint: 7484 2FB7 7588 ACD1  3A8F 778A 7407 2928
DSS/D-H Key Fingerprint: 3312 6597 8258 9A9E D9FA  4878 C245 D245 EAA7 0DCC
Public keys available at pgpkeys.mit.edu. PGP encrypted e-mail preferred.

Get your assault crypto before they ban it!

US/Canadian Windows 95/NT or Mac users:
Get Eudora Light + PGP 5.0 for free at http://www.eudora.com/eudoralight/
Get PGP 5.0 for free at http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pgp-form.html

Non-US PGP 5.0 sources:
http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/
http://www.heise.de/ct/pgpCA/download.shtml
ftp://ftp.pca.dfn.de/pub/pgp/V5.0/
ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/pub/pc/win95/pgp
ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/pub/mac/pgp
http://www.shopmiami.com/utopia.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/pgp/pgp50/win/

RSA export-o-matic:
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

--Boundary..3984.1071713730.multipart/signed
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pgp00001.pgp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pgp00001.pgp"
Content-Description: "PGP signature"

LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogUEdQIGZv
ciBQZXJzb25hbCBQcml2YWN5IDUuMApNZXNzYWdlSUQ6IDFscDBKTkMvWVp5
MVdUNTNnaVNCeEFzQlRIRkhLb3QzCgppUUEvQXdVQk5CU3VXTUpGMGtYcXB3
M01FUUxseEFDZ2lMUUVra2xxTjZyaG1JdU1XWW5rRGo4SXBxUUFualdmCmRM
TWZ2V2wvWTNNSnVIbisraUViU0t0Sgo9Vms4aQotLS0tLUVORCBQR1AgU0lH
TkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K
--Boundary..3984.1071713730.multipart/signed--

At 9:41 AM -0700 9/6/97, Tim May wrote:
>But look on the bright side: the militias and other patriot groups are
>getting a huge bounce out of this. Stay far away from the nests of vipers.
>Jefferson's wisdom that we need a revolution every generation or so is
>apt...though it's been about 180 years too long.

I claim the overthrow of Jim Crow laws and the Vietnam war in the 1960s and
1970s were the last revolution.  We're right on schedule for the next one.
Civilization can be measured as the inverse of the blood shed during
revolutions.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA