Re: Nightmare Scenario: Public Key Distribution Controlled

Does the following provision of the amendment lighten 
Tim's dim glim?

   "§ 2804. Encryption products manufactured and intended
   for use in the United States ...

   (d) USE OF PRIOR PRODUCTS LAWFUL.-- After 
   January 31, 2000, it shall not be unlawful to use any 
   encryption product purchased or in use prior to such 
   date.

[Bottom page 13]

That gives about 450 days to widespread stego, surrept 
onions and backchannels to prepositioned stashes. Max
use prior to.

Or, say to hell with it, coders will forever evade USCoders.

John Young, who informs so many, mulled the worst case scenario:

>That gives about 450 days to widespread stego, surrept
>onions and backchannels to prepositioned stashes. Max
>use prior to.

	Hmmm.  Isn't it time for a reality check?  Getting bent out of
shape because the House Intelligence Community -- surely the legislators
closest to the spooks and spies of the Permanent Government, and rather
addicted to its product -- votes to outlaw cryptography without a backdoor
seems to be excessive.

	Declan or someone who tracks Congressional voting trends should
double-check me, but I harbor doubt that the US Congress (or rather, the
House of Represenatives) is about to vote and approve such a bill.

	I understand the Senate is perhaps gone, but the House?

	If I'm right, then we have been given the focus for a major
political action campaign.  I'm up for a bullet vote, where possible.  We
must build a coalition which will demand a yea or nay promise on access to
strong crypto from prospective candidates for the Senate and House in '98.
And from presidential candidates for 2,000.

	Personally, I think we should define the correct choice in terms of
Full Citizenship -- the option to whisper or encrypt that should be
available to every law-abiding citizen.

	And we should define the Spook & Spy alternative as the stunted
choice: a citizenship stripped of basic rights by an ambitous, jealous, and
greedy class of professional spies and their acolytes.

	This Nation, and the rights of citizenship the state conceeds, were
not defined and enumberated in terms of what will make police oversight and
investigation most cost-effective.

	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 04:34 AM 9/14/97 -0500, Thomas Junker wrote:
>On 14 Sep 97 at 0:00, Vin McLellan wrote:
>> 	Declan or someone who tracks Congressional voting trends should
>> double-check me, but I harbor doubt that the US Congress (or rather, the
>> House of Represenatives) is about to vote and approve such a bill.
>
>Some thought the same of the CDA. In a few years more some will be 
>saying the same of some death camp bill. It's all relative, and the 
>relative window in this step-wise game of incremental slavery is 
>quite narrow these days.
>
>> This Nation, and the rights of citizenship the state conceeds,
>> were not defined and enumberated in terms of what will make police
>> oversight and investigation most cost-effective.
>
>Right, but it's illustrative of the problem that one writes, "and
>the rights of citizenship the state concedes," because this nation
>was founded on no such basis.

The key thing to realize is that the power of the state in the US derives
from the will of the governed. What Cypherpunks tend to ignore is the
simple fact that the governed want to be governed. The People want
warrantless wiretaps, they want crypto to be outlawed, they want the death
penalty for anyone that passes a joint to their kids. That they arrived at
these wants due to propaganda is irrelevant. Congress simply reflects the
will of the People. If you doubt this fact, just conduct a poll that asks
the following question:

"Should suspected nuclear terrorists and child molesters be allowed to
engage in their activities unchallenged OR should the government be enabled
to have access to all plaintext?"

Crowley would argue that this is not their True Will. Correct, but since
the People are not going to discover their True Will, who cares?


--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
  PGP encrypted mail preferred.
  DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
  http://rc5.distributed.net/

--Boundary..3984.1071713731.multipart/signed
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

At 04:34 AM 9/14/97 -0500, Thomas Junker wrote:
>If you haven't noticed, we are well down on the slippery slope of
>acceptance of unconstitutional legislation and executive acts. 
>With the substitution of outrageously unconstutional language for 
>the original text of SAFE, the slope has just steepened dramatically 
>and the edge above is pretty well out of reach.  
>
>The problem is that no constitution has the power to enforce itself.
>It depends entirely on a wide, usually mostly unstated agreement
>that its principles are Very Important Things.  Liberia, you may
>recall, copied the U.S. Constitution almost to the word, and it did
>them no good whatsoever because the people were not imbued with the
>spirit of the document.  It's quite remarkable that any semblance of 
>our Constitution has lasted as long as it has, but it's pretty 
>obvious that the general understanding and agreement that holds such 
>things in place has passed below critical mass in the U.S.  The 
>government is now moving into "anything goes" mode.  That's when the 
>slope becomes nearly vertical.

If this is correct, expect some major anti-gun legislation in the next few
years. Even if government is totally evil, the people can still protect
themselves from jack-booted thugs if they are sufficiently well-armed. This
means owning assault weapons. Get them while you can, they're going
fast...and LOTS of ammunition.

>> 	Declan or someone who tracks Congressional voting trends should
>> double-check me, but I harbor doubt that the US Congress (or rather, the
>> House of Represenatives) is about to vote and approve such a bill.
>
>Some thought the same of the CDA. In a few years more some will be 
>saying the same of some death camp bill. It's all relative, and the 
>relative window in this step-wise game of incremental slavery is 
>quite narrow these days.

The process that brought Hitler is very similar to what is happening in the
US today.

1. All guns had to be registered. (much of this work was done by Hitler's
predecessors, but it made his job much easier.)

2. Abortion was made available on demand.

3. Euthanasia was made available for the terminally ill, then encouraged
for the elderly and feeble-minded.

4. Privately owned guns were confiscated. Freedom of speech and press was
curtailed.

5. Euthanasia gradually began to be applied to Communists, labor union
organizers, Jews, homosexuals, religious leaders, and anyone else who
opposed the government, eventually requiring the death camps to process all
those requiring euthanizatrion.

Most Germans didn't wake up to the situation until it was too late. Martin
Neimoller's quote "...and when they came for me, I couldn't say anything,
because there was nobody left to speak for me" (paraphrased) is one of the
most damning indictments of the sheeplike tendencies of most people. At
this time, we are working on steps 3 and 4 in the US.

>> This Nation, and the rights of citizenship the state conceeds,
>> were not defined and enumberated in terms of what will make police
>> oversight and investigation most cost-effective.
>
>Right, but it's illustrative of the problem that one writes, "and
>the rights of citizenship the state concedes," because this nation
>was founded on no such basis.  The state conceded nothing because the
>state was considered to have no natural powers, unlike the
>contemporary view in the rest of the world then, and for the most
>part, now.  Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
>make it pretty clear that the foundation for the U.S. government is
>the delegation of powers from individuals endowed with natural
>rights.  Most of the rest of the world still functions on the model
>of a soveriegn state which graciously grants rights to its
>citizen-units and can withdraw them by the same power.  It's a
>fundamental differenc that few people outside the U.S. even
>contemplate.

Of course, this fundamental truth is not taught in public schools anymore,
the better to condition the populace to embrace step 5. You have to be one
of those home-school nuts or be able to afford a good private school to
learn _real_ history.

>Also, as has been suggested in another post, this is about *money*,
>not national security. Or it's about *power*. Or *money* as the
>lifeblood of *state power*. I doubt there is a politician or 
>bureaucrat above the level of Mayberry who actually fears *any* of 
>the Horsemen. On the contrary, the Horsemen are the statists' best 
>friends. Without the hyped dangers there would be little excuse for 
>the stepwise evisceration of the Constitution and the construction of 
>the most technologically advanced police state in the history of 
>mankind.

Obviously, Big Brother cannot propagandize "We hate strong crypto, because
anonymous e-cash allows people to untraceably move funds anywhere in the
world without our knowledge, avoid paying taxes, and create anonymous dead
pools we can't trace or regulate." So the Horsemen are Big Brother's only
option.

>This latest assault on the Constitution was inevitable. Only the 
>timing may have been affected by pro-crypto legislative efforts. 
>
>Major grabs of power are almost always preceded by a period of 
>softening up by PR bombardment, exactly what we've been seeing for 
>the last couple of years. Any time you see a concerted PR campaign 
>to demonize something it's a lead pipe cinch that it will culminate 
>in a move to grab power. Trace things back to the beginning of the PR 
>campaign and that's the point in time when the ultimate objective was 
>already in the sights of the movers and shakers behind the campaign.
>
>TJ

Those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it.

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)

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..3984.1071713731.multipart/signed
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pgp00005.pgp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pgp00005.pgp"
Content-Description: "PGP signature"

LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogUEdQIGZv
ciBQZXJzb25hbCBQcml2YWN5IDUuMApNZXNzYWdlSUQ6IFYxSFNKNnZ4K0RT
WkREWlZrTE14ZTFqK2FQeVdMNzUyCgppUUEvQXdVQk5CdjlpTUpGMGtYcXB3
M01FUUlKRkFDZUoxblo1ZkVKZE53ek1kVkVoRm9pN3ZjNGdqNEFuUmNkCnF4
eHBKb0FpWXYvcVFxSlNGZjRWMXFLbgo9RmcrcgotLS0tLUVORCBQR1AgU0lH
TkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K
--Boundary..3984.1071713731.multipart/signed--

At 12:04 pm -0400 on 9/14/97, Steve Schear wrote:


> So, if these "instruments of freedom" could only be useful to criminals,
> then the last great hope for our country may be in the hands of
> drug-trafficers, terrorists and the like, since only they will be free ;-)

Either that, or we apply Moscaritolo's Conjecture:

"If we could just pass a few more laws, we'd all be criminals."

:-).


Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Jonathan Wienke wrote:

> 1. All guns had to be registered. (much of this work was done by Hitler's
> predecessors, but it made his job much easier.)
> 
> 2. Abortion was made available on demand.
> 
> 3. Euthanasia was made available for the terminally ill, then encouraged
> for the elderly and feeble-minded.
> 
> 4. Privately owned guns were confiscated. Freedom of speech and press was
> curtailed.
> 
> 5. Euthanasia gradually began to be applied to Communists, labor union
> organizers, Jews, homosexuals, religious leaders, and anyone else who
> opposed the government, eventually requiring the death camps to process all
> those requiring euthanizatrion.
> 
> Most Germans didn't wake up to the situation until it was too late. Martin
> Neimoller's quote "...and when they came for me, I couldn't say anything,
> because there was nobody left to speak for me" (paraphrased) is one of the
> most damning indictments of the sheeplike tendencies of most people. At
> this time, we are working on steps 3 and 4 in the US.

Worse, they voted for Hitler (who by the way stopped the "Taxi Murders"),
and the legislature voted him emergency powers.  The NAZIs did everything
by a stricty legal process.

The principle was clear but overridden by pragmatism.  From life is sacred
(or inviolable if you don't like religous connotations) to life not worthy
of life.

There were those speaking for principle then, as now, but the divisive
politics said not to listen to them because a government can provide
Utopia if you will just provide them the power.

Faschism is more dangerous than socialism, since it keeps some kind of
ownership in private hands, but has all the controls - consider Hillary's
healthcare plan - doctors and hospitals would still be privately owned.

PGP and RSA will still own the intellectual property under GAK.

> Those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it.

I saw a very ironic session on C-SPAN with the Congressional Black Caucus
sponsoring lecturers on victims of police violence.  A few times the crime
of "Driving while Black" was mentioned.  They mentioned this will get
worse as the states move to primary enforcement of seatbelts, but forgot
to mention that the administration is pushing the initiative (they needed
something since 55 was repealed).  Also mentioned was the war on drugs and
a few of the other invasive federal programs.

My question is why the minorities vote to give police arbitrary powers (or
withold funds from the state if they don't), and expect that the police
won't act arbitrarily and mostly against minorities.

> 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)

Another thing I heard was the move to ban small, inexpensive handguns. 
The type mainly bought by women to protect themselves.  I think it was
something brought forward by Feinstein. 

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---

On 14 Sep 97 at 0:00, Vin McLellan wrote:

> 	Hmmm.  Isn't it time for a reality check?  Getting bent out of
> shape because the House Intelligence Community -- surely the legislators
> closest to the spooks and spies of the Permanent Government, and rather
> addicted to its product -- votes to outlaw cryptography without a backdoor
> seems to be excessive.

I disagree. "They" instinctively perceive that they have a PR
climate in which they have successfully elevated the Horsemen to
deities that no politician who values his reelection will challenge.
The whole situation has been engineered, in part for this moment.
They will do it this session if they can, otherwise next session.

If you haven't noticed, we are well down on the slippery slope of
acceptance of unconstitutional legislation and executive acts. 
With the substitution of outrageously unconstutional language for 
the original text of SAFE, the slope has just steepened dramatically 
and the edge above is pretty well out of reach.  

The problem is that no constitution has the power to enforce itself.
It depends entirely on a wide, usually mostly unstated agreement
that its principles are Very Important Things.  Liberia, you may
recall, copied the U.S. Constitution almost to the word, and it did
them no good whatsoever because the people were not imbued with the
spirit of the document.  It's quite remarkable that any semblance of 
our Constitution has lasted as long as it has, but it's pretty 
obvious that the general understanding and agreement that holds such 
things in place has passed below critical mass in the U.S.  The 
government is now moving into "anything goes" mode.  That's when the 
slope becomes nearly vertical.

> 	Declan or someone who tracks Congressional voting trends should
> double-check me, but I harbor doubt that the US Congress (or rather, the
> House of Represenatives) is about to vote and approve such a bill.

Some thought the same of the CDA. In a few years more some will be 
saying the same of some death camp bill. It's all relative, and the 
relative window in this step-wise game of incremental slavery is 
quite narrow these days.

> This Nation, and the rights of citizenship the state conceeds,
> were not defined and enumberated in terms of what will make police
> oversight and investigation most cost-effective.

Right, but it's illustrative of the problem that one writes, "and
the rights of citizenship the state concedes," because this nation
was founded on no such basis.  The state conceded nothing because the
state was considered to have no natural powers, unlike the
contemporary view in the rest of the world then, and for the most
part, now.  Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
make it pretty clear that the foundation for the U.S. government is
the delegation of powers from individuals endowed with natural
rights.  Most of the rest of the world still functions on the model
of a soveriegn state which graciously grants rights to its
citizen-units and can withdraw them by the same power.  It's a
fundamental differenc that few people outside the U.S. even
contemplate.

Also, as has been suggested in another post, this is about *money*,
not national security. Or it's about *power*. Or *money* as the
lifeblood of *state power*. I doubt there is a politician or 
bureaucrat above the level of Mayberry who actually fears *any* of 
the Horsemen. On the contrary, the Horsemen are the statists' best 
friends. Without the hyped dangers there would be little excuse for 
the stepwise evisceration of the Constitution and the construction of 
the most technologically advanced police state in the history of 
mankind.

This latest assault on the Constitution was inevitable. Only the 
timing may have been affected by pro-crypto legislative efforts. 

Major grabs of power are almost always preceded by a period of 
softening up by PR bombardment, exactly what we've been seeing for 
the last couple of years. Any time you see a concerted PR campaign 
to demonize something it's a lead pipe cinch that it will culminate 
in a move to grab power. Trace things back to the beginning of the PR 
campaign and that's the point in time when the ultimate objective was 
already in the sights of the movers and shakers behind the campaign.

TJ

>Obviously, Big Brother cannot propagandize "We hate strong crypto, because
>anonymous e-cash allows people to untraceably move funds anywhere in the
>world without our knowledge, avoid paying taxes, and create anonymous dead
>pools we can't trace or regulate." So the Horsemen are Big Brother's only
>option.

So, if these "instruments of freedom" could only be useful to criminals,
then the last great hope for our country may be in the hands of
drug-trafficers, terrorists and the like, since only they will be free ;-)

--Steve