Re: The problem of playing politics with our constitutional rights

I still maintain... they can diddle one another all they want
in washington... if ENOUGH people use crypto everyday...
there's bascially not a damned thing they can do about it...
If it becomes 'fashionable' to use it -- whatever it takes...
the sheer numbers will work...
Why not a 'crypto' YES WWW thing like our blackout pages???
If enough people put those perl lines on their hompage...
there you are -- instant mass 'export'.... boom...

Larry.

Your general idea is right-on. If lots of folks use crypto, it'll be
politically more difficult for the government to ban it. But do many
browser users even //know// they're using an encrypted channel? Probably
not. This is an education issue as well as a deployment issue.

-Declan


On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 Syniker@aol.com wrote:

> I still maintain... they can diddle one another all they want
> in washington... if ENOUGH people use crypto everyday...
> there's bascially not a damned thing they can do about it...
> If it becomes 'fashionable' to use it -- whatever it takes...
> the sheer numbers will work...
> Why not a 'crypto' YES WWW thing like our blackout pages???
> If enough people put those perl lines on their hompage...
> there you are -- instant mass 'export'.... boom...
> 
> Larry.
> 
>

> Your general idea is right-on. If lots of folks use crypto, it'll be
> politically more difficult for the government to ban it. But do many
> browser users even //know// they're using an encrypted channel? Probably
> not. This is an education issue as well as a deployment issue.

I must admit that I didn't think much about crypto until this came up.

You know, I think there are a couple of types of Libertarians. 

Type one says that government doesn't do anything right, because
collectively they are incompetent, in the same way many people in big
companies make bad decisions.  Government is like the biggest company
in the nation, with no profit pressure to restrain bureaucracy.  In
addition, government is a way to try and reconcile opposing views, and
so we rarely get a "pure" version of anything - in fact, we often get
contradictory results, such as tobacco subsidies colliding with
tobacco restrictions.  Because of this, smaller government is better -
solve the tobacco problem by enacting /neither/ subsidies nor
restrictions, and save a whole pile of money and effort.

Type two says that government doesn't do anything right because of
actual malicious actions within government - that government is
a conspiracy between fat cat businessmen and nasty spooks, and
that they very often, quite deliberately do the wrong thing.

I've traditionally been a Type One libertarian, but I think you can
only explain the current crypto efforts with Type Two.

I must confess that I'm wondering what Seth Finkelstein, Pro-Government
Warrior, able to jump over 50 Libertarians in a single bound, thinks of
all this.  Crypto restrictions are natural to oppose in a Libertarian
world, due to our fundemental distrust of government.  Where do they
fit in a Liberal one?

D

Libertarianism is the only coherent ideology when it comes to the
Internet. I'm told there may be a piece appearing shortly on HotWired
arguing just this. At the Libertarian Party convention last summer, a
bunch of cypherpunks including some on f-c showed up and made the platform
even more pro-crypto and anti-GAK. I wrote about this for HotWired then. 

But to defend modern liberals for a moment (I'm a recovering one. Yes, it
takes a long time.), groups like EPIC and the ACLU are generally
liberal-ish and they're quite good on encryption. 

Of course, the Democrats in Congress are some of the biggest anti-crypto
folks around. 

-Declan


On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, David H Dennis wrote:
> I must confess that I'm wondering what Seth Finkelstein, Pro-Government
> Warrior, able to jump over 50 Libertarians in a single bound, thinks of
> all this.  Crypto restrictions are natural to oppose in a Libertarian
> world, due to our fundemental distrust of government.  Where do they
> fit in a Liberal one?

David H Dennis wrote:

> Crypto restrictions are natural to oppose in a Libertarian
> world, due to our fundemental distrust of government.  Where do they
> fit in a Liberal one?

They don't fit in any fucking world any more than butt-fucking 
the citizens fits in any fucking world.
There is no longer any rule of law in the country so it is now
acceptable for each of us to make our own laws and enforce them.
I met with myself in a double-secret commmittteee meeting last
night and passed a lot of laws that carry the death penalty and
now I have to kill everyone but me.
I also passed a law saying you all have to give me 30% of your
income until I get around to killing you. And you all have to
go to Vietnam and kill ten people and then go to Kent State and
kill a student and then you have to kill people with religious
beliefs that are different than yours and all of their children
too. And everyone has to bomb their own house and blame it on
Timothy McVeigh and then I'm going to pardon him and let him
sexually harrass Paula Jones.
And you guys have to quit reading other people's stuff because
I am the only official news, now.
NEWS FLASH!!!
I'm an asshole and I'm going to kill you all and take all of your
money and I'm still at the top of my latest poll. I just asked
myself.
So is anybody bothered because I'm not wearing a suit and smiling
at you and telling you lies? Is your life going to be any worse
now that a real asshole like me is the dictator of everybody?
Not really. I think things will stay pretty much the same.

Fuck You

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, David H Dennis wrote:

> all this.  Crypto restrictions are natural to oppose in a Libertarian
> world, due to our fundemental distrust of government.  Where do they
> fit in a Liberal one?

Because of the infinitely recursive controls necessary to implement
liberal policy. 

Example: farm subsidies.

We must set a limit on the number of farmers and what they can produce.
Farmers keep records.  We need GAK to insure the farmers (or their buyers,
etc) can't cheat and grow and sell more grain than their quota.  They pass
laws on farmers, then the wholesalers, then the grocery stores, and
finally need to track your purchases (to prevent you from going to a
roadside market).

Example: Government paid-for health care

Your patient records should be confidential, but the government might
require a physical to pay for an office visit, or say one is redundant, so
they must be able to see what you are being treated for.  Your doctor
(maybe with your cooperation) may be attempting to defraud the system.

Liberalism (or socialism and faschism to avoid confusion) is the use of
government force to obtain economic ends.  When a freely done trade
becomes a crime, they need enforcement powers to track down criminals.

Even in the milder form where they simply tax everyone into poverty and
then give subsidies to make those they choose rich, they need enforcement
powers to prevent people from avoiding the government imposed poverty.

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

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, David H Dennis wrote:

> Government is like the biggest company
> in the nation, with no profit pressure to restrain bureaucracy.  

I wonder what would happen if we created competition for the gov't. Say,
make each state compete with each other, attempting to 'sell' services
(roads, welfare, real estate, etc.) for the cheapest rates (taxes). That
might force the gov't to radically change. One might say that exists now,
as people can choose the state they're in. But what if the state were not
restricted to only 'selling' within state lines, and the federal gov't had
competition as well? A true capitialist-democrasy.

Just some random thoughts.

-- Run.exe
  * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
            Adopt Your Legislator -  http://www.crypto.com/adopt
"If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith."
                -- Albert Einstein
runexe@ntplx.net http://www.ntplx.net/~runexe/ PGP encrypted mail prefered

At 12:48 PM 9/13/97 +0000, Doug Geiger wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, David H Dennis wrote:
>
>> Government is like the biggest company
>> in the nation, with no profit pressure to restrain bureaucracy.  
>
>I wonder what would happen if we created competition for the gov't. Say,
>make each state compete with each other, attempting to 'sell' services
>(roads, welfare, real estate, etc.) for the cheapest rates (taxes). That
>might force the gov't to radically change. One might say that exists now,
>as people can choose the state they're in. But what if the state were not
>restricted to only 'selling' within state lines, and the federal gov't had
>competition as well? A true capitialist-democrasy.

Actually, states do compete with each other for Federal money.
--
Jon Lebkowsky		http://www.well.com/~jonl
jonl@onr.com                  cdb, wfm, vb et al

Nice idea Declan, but what's "lots of folks"?  Rhetorical question --
what percentage of the populace in the U.S. is even on the net?  Another
one -- of those, what percentage even know what PGP is?

On one list I'm on, people whine all too often how difficult PGP is; on
another, most probably would think PGP is a drug.  Hmmm ....

Of course education of less well-versed net users is important.  But if
we're talking the Now instead of the Future, education of those not even
on the net may be more important.

So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's
never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd
think) why crypto is important?

-Jim

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> Your general idea is right-on. If lots of folks use crypto, it'll be
> politically more difficult for the government to ban it. But do many
> browser users even //know// they're using an encrypted channel? Probably
> not. This is an education issue as well as a deployment issue.
> 
> -Declan
> 
> On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 Syniker@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > I still maintain... they can diddle one another all they want
> > in washington... if ENOUGH people use crypto everyday...
> > there's bascially not a damned thing they can do about it...
> > If it becomes 'fashionable' to use it -- whatever it takes...
> > the sheer numbers will work...
> > Why not a 'crypto' YES WWW thing like our blackout pages???
> > If enough people put those perl lines on their hompage...
> > there you are -- instant mass 'export'.... boom...
> >
> > Larry.
> >
> >

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, James S. Tyre wrote:

> So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's
> never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd
> think) why crypto is important?

You can make general pro-privacy arguments about wiretapping, which is
what I did in my Netly column yesterday. Or you can describe crypto in
detail, which is what I did in my February 1997 Internet Underground
feature. 

-Declan

At 1:42 AM -0400 9/12/97, Tim May wrote:
>At 10:05 PM -0700 9/11/97, James S. Tyre wrote:
>
>>So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's
>>never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd
>>think) why crypto is important?
>
>This is back to where we were four and a half years ago, when Clipper was
>dropped on us. "How do we educate the users?"
>
>Trust me, it's a hopeless task. We don't have the advertising budgets, the
>staff for education, etc.
>
>And it ain't our responsibility to "save" the sheeple.

True, but if it's war, we gotta get more troops. I don't want to save them,
I want more troops on my side.

Education is good. Exploiting FUD is probably better. (DoJ's learned
something from dealing with Microsoft.) Luckily, it ain't that hard to whip
up Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt against the US Government.


Best-- Glenn Hauman, BiblioBytes
       http://www.bb.com/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 10:07 AM 9/12/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>I'm just pointing out that we saw this situation several years ago 
with
>Clipper. The list was, predictably, sidetracked with literally 
thousands of
>suggestions about how best to recruit more public supporters. T-
shirts,
>gimmicks, and suggestions for songs about crypto, for getting t.v.
>producers to put crypto, pro-privacy themes in their t.v. shows, and 
so on.
>All pretty hopeless, wouldn't you say?

a)Snarf a gig or two of dirty pictures off of Usenet. (About 2 days 
of feed)
b)PGP them all.
c)Set up a 'free' porn site protected solely by AdultCheck, etc, 
which only costs $5.00/year to join. Or just host the site in Denmark 
and forget the 'protection'.
d)Make it REAL easy for ten million horny geeks to download and 
install PGP, so that they can look at the pictures. There's a PGP for 
Windows, right? With a double-click to install and a key-generation 
wizard. (PGP/Eudora, which is what I'm using, is entirely brain-dead 
to install.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNBmFeDKf8mIpTvjWEQI4twCgh9IRDeCmxItOE00gcXMXmVyX2u8An1Jl
L0f2AEOIQ2k8fC3L6+jCdrDg
=pJn4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 10:05 PM -0700 9/11/97, James S. Tyre wrote:

>So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's
>never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd
>think) why crypto is important?

This is back to where we were four and a half years ago, when Clipper was
dropped on us. "How do we educate the users?"

Trust me, it's a hopeless task. We don't have the advertising budgets, the
staff for education, etc.

And it ain't our responsibility to "save" the sheeple.

What we _can_ do is prepare for a long guerilla war with the bastards. 80%
of the population will willingly trade away their rights ("what have I got
to hide?") for more perceived security. Ben Franklin saw this 230 years ago.

It's war. Too late for a public relations campaign so that some future
Congress will slightly relax their laws.


And in a war, gotta break some eggs.

--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."

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:07:45 -0700, you wrote:

>At 9:13 AM -0700 9/12/97, Glenn Hauman wrote:
>>At 1:42 AM -0400 9/12/97, Tim May wrote:
>>>At 10:05 PM -0700 9/11/97, James S. Tyre wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's
>>>>never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd
>>>>think) why crypto is important?
>>>
>>>This is back to where we were four and a half years ago, when Clipper was
>>>dropped on us. "How do we educate the users?"
>>>
>>>Trust me, it's a hopeless task. We don't have the advertising budgets, the
>>>staff for education, etc.
>>>
>>>And it ain't our responsibility to "save" the sheeple.
>>
>>True, but if it's war, we gotta get more troops. I don't want to save them,
>>I want more troops on my side.
>>
>>Education is good. Exploiting FUD is probably better. (DoJ's learned
>>something from dealing with Microsoft.) Luckily, it ain't that hard to whip
>>up Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt against the US Government.
>
>Fair enough. If you can launch an education program, well and good.
>
>I'm just pointing out that we saw this situation several years ago with
>Clipper. The list was, predictably, sidetracked with literally thousands of
>suggestions about how best to recruit more public supporters. T-shirts,
>gimmicks, and suggestions for songs about crypto, for getting t.v.
>producers to put crypto, pro-privacy themes in their t.v. shows, and so on.
>All pretty hopeless, wouldn't you say?
>
>As Lucky Green just said, "Cypherpunks write code."
>
>(This can be either direct code, or memetic code, or things related to
>getting actual technological changes distributed. What Cypherpunks _don't_
>do is try to play the Beltway game that Jerry Berman and his ilk play  (so
>poorly, for our issues), or to try to play the Hollywood and Madison Avenue
>games of swaying popular opinion.)
>
>--Tim May
>

Ok, we write code.  But as James S. Tyre pointed out, if the code is
too difficult to use it will not be.  And as Declan pointed out
many/most people will not use the crypto if they must think about it.

Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
sheeple to work.  How do we do that?

-Doug
-------------------
Douglas L. Peterson
mailto:fnorky@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/1271/

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:40:30 -0700, you wrote:

>At 10:09 AM 9/15/97 -0700, sameer wrote:
>>> 
>>> Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
>>> sheeple to work.  How do we do that?
>>
>>	Sell code.
>>
>Marketing.
>
>It's not enough to have a great product -- you must also have great
>marketing. In the case of memewar, you need to get people to want to use
>something, enough to change their habits, even slightly. The less they need
>to change, relative to the benefit they get, the better.
>
>PGP/Eudora is a wonderful example of this. All that is needed to use it is
>one extra step (after install) -- typing your passphrase to sign a message
>before it is sent. Otherwise, it works the same as it always has. As a side
>effect, you can right-click to encrypt any file you can see in Explorer.
>Simple, quick, and usable even by the brain-dead, once you've convinced
>them TO use it. (And I forgot to bring my key file to work, so my Eudora
>here is useless for those purposes. Bother.)

Too bad I use Agent.  PGP is not out for it.

Yea, great marketing works well.  Just look at Windows.

-Doug
-------------------
Douglas L. Peterson
mailto:fnorky@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/1271/

> Ok, we write code.  But as James S. Tyre pointed out, if the code is
> too difficult to use it will not be.  And as Declan pointed out
> many/most people will not use the crypto if they must think about it.
> Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
> sheeple to work.  How do we do that?

	Pay someone to write easy to use interfaces to the crypto libraries
already out there.

At 12:45 AM 9/22/97 -0500, snow wrote:
>
>> Ok, we write code.  But as James S. Tyre pointed out, if the code is
>> too difficult to use it will not be.  And as Declan pointed out
>> many/most people will not use the crypto if they must think about it.
>> Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
>> sheeple to work.  How do we do that?
>
>	Pay someone to write easy to use interfaces to the crypto libraries
>already out there. 

The code also has to do some good.  Currently there are some gaping holes
that I have not seen anyone cover very well.  (At least not in a way that
most users could actually use.)

Take, for example, the average home user.  They will most likely be running
Windows 95 or Windows 3.1 on a PC (486 or pentagram processor).  They
connect to the net via TCP/IP over a dialup link.

Now since Louie "tap'em all, let the FBI sort em out" Freeh may or may not
have that 1% of the phone switch tapped, the part that travels over the
phone is vulnerable.  (Microsoft was working on an SSL enabled winsock.dll,
but it has been dropped.  (Any ideas why? *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
*say no more*))

Even if the person uses PGP for all their mail, the sites they surf, the
ftp sites they visit, and all the addresses they send mail to will still be
visible to the prying eyes of anyone who has the resources to tap the phone
line.

This is something that needs to be covered.  How about an ssl enabled PPP
daemon, as well as the winsock layer to support it? Then you have to get
ISPs to use it. 

IPSec does not (as far as I can tell) resolve this problem, not does it
look like an option for the home user.  (From what I have seen (and I may
be wrong), the key distribution is tied to IP address.  What about dynamic
IP addresses?)  Are there any of the IP encryption key exchange protocols
that deal with dynamic IP?  (And/or have a windows based client?)

SSH is a possible option, but it requires a fair bit of knowledge and
another site to connect to that has not been compromised and where you have
a shell account.  (Most ISPs do not support SSH.  Some do not give you a
shell account.) There is also the possibility of apps not talking through
the IP tunnel and revealing unintended information.

Mail is another hole.  Eudora now distributes PGP 5.0 with the latest
version.  (This version does not do RSA keys. You can get the plug in to do
those keys from PGP inc.)  This is helpful, but there are many other
plug-ins that need to be written.  Support for remailers is lacking.
Windows based code for Mixmaster is also a needed thing.  A good interface
would help immensely.  (Private Idaho was a big step in the right
direction. Integrated with a remailer people already use would be another
big step forward.)

I am sure that people can think of all sorts of other ideas for needed
apps.  But to make them usable for the "general public", the apps will be
needed to be written for Windows.  (As much as I hate to think about it...)

---
|              "That'll make it hot for them!" - Guy Grand               |
|"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer:         |
| mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!"  | Ignore the man      |
|`finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key  | behind the keyboard.|
|         http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/       |alan@ctrl-alt-del.com|

> 
> Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
> sheeple to work.  How do we do that?

	Sell code.

-- 
Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-986-8770
President					FAX:     510-986-8777
C2Net
http://www.c2.net/				sameer@c2.net

sameer <sameer@c2.net> writes:

> > 
> > Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
> > sheeple to work.  How do we do that?
> 
> 	Sell code.

Write obnoxious and threatening lawyer letters.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

At 10:40 AM 9/15/97 -0700, Lizard wrote:
>PGP/Eudora is a wonderful example of this. All that is needed to use it is
>one extra step (after install) -- typing your passphrase to sign a message
>before it is sent. Otherwise, it works the same as it always has. As a side
>effect, you can right-click to encrypt any file you can see in Explorer.
>Simple, quick, and usable even by the brain-dead, once you've convinced
>them TO use it. (And I forgot to bring my key file to work, so my Eudora
>here is useless for those purposes. Bother.)

So generate a work key at work, for encrypting/signing work stuff, and get
your home key off the keyservers for encrypting stuff for home use.

I'm also highly pleased to see Eudora and PGP together, since there's
a base of about 20 million Eudora users that PGP will pick up some of.
				Thanks!
					Bill
Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

At 10:09 AM 9/15/97 -0700, sameer wrote:
>> 
>> Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
>> sheeple to work.  How do we do that?
>
>	Sell code.
>
Marketing.

It's not enough to have a great product -- you must also have great
marketing. In the case of memewar, you need to get people to want to use
something, enough to change their habits, even slightly. The less they need
to change, relative to the benefit they get, the better.

PGP/Eudora is a wonderful example of this. All that is needed to use it is
one extra step (after install) -- typing your passphrase to sign a message
before it is sent. Otherwise, it works the same as it always has. As a side
effect, you can right-click to encrypt any file you can see in Explorer.
Simple, quick, and usable even by the brain-dead, once you've convinced
them TO use it. (And I forgot to bring my key file to work, so my Eudora
here is useless for those purposes. Bother.)

> At 10:09 AM 9/15/97 -0700, sameer wrote:
> >> Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
> >> sheeple to work.  How do we do that?
> >	Sell code.
> Marketing.
> 
> It's not enough to have a great product -- you must also have great

	Or, more correctly, you don't have to have a great product, it
just has to _seem_ easy to use (Win95)--and you must also have great

> marketing. In the case of memewar, you need to get people to want to use
> something, enough to change their habits, even slightly. The less they need
> to change, relative to the benefit they get, the better.

At 9:13 AM -0700 9/12/97, Glenn Hauman wrote:
>At 1:42 AM -0400 9/12/97, Tim May wrote:
>>At 10:05 PM -0700 9/11/97, James S. Tyre wrote:
>>
>>>So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's
>>>never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd
>>>think) why crypto is important?
>>
>>This is back to where we were four and a half years ago, when Clipper was
>>dropped on us. "How do we educate the users?"
>>
>>Trust me, it's a hopeless task. We don't have the advertising budgets, the
>>staff for education, etc.
>>
>>And it ain't our responsibility to "save" the sheeple.
>
>True, but if it's war, we gotta get more troops. I don't want to save them,
>I want more troops on my side.
>
>Education is good. Exploiting FUD is probably better. (DoJ's learned
>something from dealing with Microsoft.) Luckily, it ain't that hard to whip
>up Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt against the US Government.

Fair enough. If you can launch an education program, well and good.

I'm just pointing out that we saw this situation several years ago with
Clipper. The list was, predictably, sidetracked with literally thousands of
suggestions about how best to recruit more public supporters. T-shirts,
gimmicks, and suggestions for songs about crypto, for getting t.v.
producers to put crypto, pro-privacy themes in their t.v. shows, and so on.
All pretty hopeless, wouldn't you say?

As Lucky Green just said, "Cypherpunks write code."

(This can be either direct code, or memetic code, or things related to
getting actual technological changes distributed. What Cypherpunks _don't_
do is try to play the Beltway game that Jerry Berman and his ilk play  (so
poorly, for our issues), or to try to play the Hollywood and Madison Avenue
games of swaying popular opinion.)

--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."

At 04:36 AM 9/15/97 GMT, Douglas L. Peterson wrote:
>Ok, we write code.  But as James S. Tyre pointed out, if the code is
>too difficult to use it will not be.  And as Declan pointed out
>many/most people will not use the crypto if they must think about it.
>
>Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
>sheeple to work.  How do we do that?

Write better code.


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

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Lucky Green wrote:

> At 04:36 AM 9/15/97 GMT, Douglas L. Peterson wrote:
> >Ok, we write code.  But as James S. Tyre pointed out, if the code is
> >too difficult to use it will not be.  And as Declan pointed out
> >many/most people will not use the crypto if they must think about it.
> >
> >Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
> >sheeple to work.  How do we do that?
> 
> Write better code.

I can think of many examples of very bad code that is difficult to use but
is very popular, an obvious one is that Apple wrote better code than MS.

Even most sheeple rely on whatever is built in to MSWord or Excel than on
PGP, so on that basis there is *NO* existing example of such code.

So, not only do cypherpunks have to write code, it has to be better
quality than Apple, with more marketing push than Microsoft.  And it must
do something useful so they also have to invent a new application that
would justify using the crypto it contains. 

All while they do something else to pay for things like food and heat. 

At this point it is easier to write laws.

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:18:51 -0400, you wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Lucky Green wrote:
>
>> At 04:36 AM 9/15/97 GMT, Douglas L. Peterson wrote:
>> >Ok, we write code.  But as James S. Tyre pointed out, if the code is
>> >too difficult to use it will not be.  And as Declan pointed out
>> >many/most people will not use the crypto if they must think about it.
>> >
>> >Writing the code is no longer enough.  The code must be usable by the
>> >sheeple to work.  How do we do that?
>> 
>> Write better code.
>
>I can think of many examples of very bad code that is difficult to use but
>is very popular, an obvious one is that Apple wrote better code than MS.
>
>Even most sheeple rely on whatever is built in to MSWord or Excel than on
>PGP, so on that basis there is *NO* existing example of such code.
>
>So, not only do cypherpunks have to write code, it has to be better
>quality than Apple, with more marketing push than Microsoft.  And it must
>do something useful so they also have to invent a new application that
>would justify using the crypto it contains. 
>
>All while they do something else to pay for things like food and heat. 
>
>At this point it is easier to write laws.
>

No.  Just difficult.  Look at the rise of Linux and Free/Net/OpenBSD.  They are
slowly making it into the mainstream (I found a copy of RedHat Linux and
InfoMagic Linux for sale at a CompUSA last week).

Linux was slow to take off because it is an OS and difficult to learn from
scratch.  If we make programs for mainstream (Windows, MacOS, OS/2) that are
VERY easy to use, do somthing everyone wants, and are free (with source code), I
think they will take off.

-Doug
-------------------
Douglas L. Peterson
mailto:fnorky@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/1271/

> What we _can_ do is prepare for a long guerilla war with the bastards. 80%
> of the population will willingly trade away their rights ("what have I got
> to hide?") for more perceived security. Ben Franklin saw this 230 years
> ago.
> 
> It's war. Too late for a public relations campaign so that some future
> Congress will slightly relax their laws.
> 
> 
> And in a war, gotta break some eggs.
> 
> --Tim May

Mostly, I agree -- at least as far as Congress is concerned.  I place
more hope in the courts, which could be because I've been practicing
con. law for 19 years (many on f-c know this, but I do not assume that
Tim knows much about me).

But even though I work within the law, this may become a by any means
necessary situation.  As I type, I'm remembering when the FBI raided my
office about a dozen years ago, without so much as a warrant, thank you
very much, accusing me of violating national security laws. 
Technically, they were right; legally, they were wrong, but they didn't
give a shit.  Nice reminder (coming from a liberal, for those who've
just been asking what liberals think) that a little civil disobedience
now and again is not such a bad thing.

-Jim

In the wise words of David H Dennis:

> I must confess that I'm wondering what Seth Finkelstein, Pro-Government
> Warrior, able to jump over 50 Libertarians in a single bound, thinks of
> all this.  Crypto restrictions are natural to oppose in a Libertarian
> world, due to our fundemental distrust of government.  Where do they
> fit in a Liberal one?

I'm not Seth, but I'm also not a libertarian. (I'm also not a
'Liberal', in the sense in which you're using it, but hey...) and I
think I can answer this question:

Most 'Liberals' (virtually all of them) are _civil_ libertarians. This
means that they support few or no restrictions on the actions of
private individuals, unless (1) They are of a commercial nature or (2)
They involve fraud or hurting people.  Most instances of (1) which are
inappropriate also involve (2), as far as they're concerned.

What they don't believe is that a right to unlimited free speech
translates into a right to do anything so long as it's not damaging
directly to others. And a couple of other things :-)

But most liberals think individuals using crypto is just fine. All the
civil libertarians do, and most liberals are.

Jon
-- 
Jon Lasser (410)383-7962                      jonl@post.goucher.edu
http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/            PGP key = 1024/EC001E4D
      "Flap your ears, Dumbo!  The feather was only a trick!"

At 1:05 AM -0400 9/12/97, James S. Tyre wrote:
>Nice idea Declan, but what's "lots of folks"?  Rhetorical question --
>what percentage of the populace in the U.S. is even on the net?

Since you asked: about 20% of the US population has used the Internet or an
online service in the past 30 days, according to Mediamark Research Spring
97. Under 40% own a PC at home, about 40% use one at work.

Not a majority yet, but that's all on a rapidly accelerating curve.


Best-- Glenn Hauman, BiblioBytes
       http://www.bb.com/

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Glenn Hauman wrote:

> Since you asked: about 20% of the US population has used the Internet or an
> online service in the past 30 days, according to Mediamark Research Spring
> 97. Under 40% own a PC at home, about 40% use one at work.
	
	Now how do you convince people that strong encryption is a very
	good thing.

	I'll lay odds that the majority of those people think that all
	encryption should be banned.   

	I know where I work, the idea that encryption should be legal
	is scoffed at.   <<  That includes the drug dealers that work
	there.  So much for the assertion that drug dealers use
	encryption. >>

	Hypothetical question:

	How will law enforcement deal with my 
	Enochian to Linear-B / Egyptian Hieroglyphics / Maya translation
	program, if encryption is banned?  It does provide clear text,
	albeit is a language that they don't understand.

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:11:18 -0700, you wrote:

>At 10:05 PM -0700 9/11/97, James S. Tyre wrote:
>>So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's
>>never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd
>>think) why crypto is important?
>
>When I walk through South-of-Market in San Francisco and hear people
>trading URL in conversation as the walk down the street and see URLs on TV,
>Billboards and even the side of busses, I wonder if this assumption is
>really true.
>

A lot of these are the same people who think nothing of giving their
Credit Card numbers over the phone.  Or use the word "SECRET" for a
password.  Until they get burned, they don't think about the problem.

-Doug
-------------------
Douglas L. Peterson
mailto:fnorky@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/1271/

At 10:05 PM -0700 9/11/97, James S. Tyre wrote:
>So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's
>never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd
>think) why crypto is important?

When I walk through South-of-Market in San Francisco and hear people
trading URL in conversation as the walk down the street and see URLs on TV,
Billboards and even the side of busses, I wonder if this assumption is
really true.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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

In <v03007834b03f19c50d45@[207.94.249.39]>, on 09/12/97 
   at 09:11 AM, Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> said:

>At 10:05 PM -0700 9/11/97, James S. Tyre wrote:
>>So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's
>>never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd
>>think) why crypto is important?

>When I walk through South-of-Market in San Francisco and hear people
>trading URL in conversation as the walk down the street and see URLs on
>TV, Billboards and even the side of busses, I wonder if this assumption
>is really true.

It is. The "Internet" is just a trendy buzz word. Little or no
understanding is behind it's use in conversation and advertizing. Just
take a look at how many clueless dolts use AOL & Comu$erve not to mention
the millions using Net$cape "The illusion of security poster child".

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
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

iQCVAwUBNBmDB49Co1n+aLhhAQELagP9E6AZl8S0Q/RyZb9EJwR8RRgu5b4OdLOM
RiAau3J9FZgrREHMC3XesuibmwbM5k/nmRneOgRmulI95qo2WmeQ/VpTntA2CdkR
/wOUgU/iFC4kpfyKjpOoVUUMUl6dOufCIbOESe2Qgp1DDmktaaEXq9ceC45+wsgv
gSimEvX1GEg=
=H8IP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 11:04 PM -0700 9/11/97, James S. Tyre wrote:
>> What we _can_ do is prepare for a long guerilla war with the bastards. 80%
>> of the population will willingly trade away their rights ("what have I got
>> to hide?") for more perceived security. Ben Franklin saw this 230 years
>> ago.
>>
>> It's war. Too late for a public relations campaign so that some future
>> Congress will slightly relax their laws.
>>
>>
>> And in a war, gotta break some eggs.
>>
>> --Tim May
>
>Mostly, I agree -- at least as far as Congress is concerned.  I place
>more hope in the courts, which could be because I've been practicing
>con. law for 19 years (many on f-c know this, but I do not assume that
>Tim knows much about me).

Thanks for providing a better picture. As we "cross-fertilize" these two
lists, Cypherpunks and Fight Censorship, it's apparent we share many of the
same views, but also have differing outlooks (in some collective sum of
views).

>But even though I work within the law, this may become a by any means
>necessary situation.  As I type, I'm remembering when the FBI raided my
>office about a dozen years ago, without so much as a warrant, thank you
>very much, accusing me of violating national security laws.
>Technically, they were right; legally, they were wrong, but they didn't
>give a shit.  Nice reminder (coming from a liberal, for those who've
>just been asking what liberals think) that a little civil disobedience
>now and again is not such a bad thing.

The "liberals" have been remarkable silent on this issue. Most of the
outrage is coming from militia movements (which, I can tell you, are being
briefed daily on this latest ZOG outrage), from anarchist libertarians, and
from conservative groups ("mark of the Beast" and all that).

Perhaps if it were J. Edgar Hoover doing this instead of Democrat Louis
Freeh, we wouldn't see "nominal" liberal Ron Dellums, amongst so many
others, standing shoulder to shoulder with the fascists. (Not that I ever
though Dellums was anything other than a fascist, mind you.)

Perhaps if it were former CIA director George Bush pushing this (in his
alternate universe second term) there would be more outrage from liberals.

I'm beginning to think Federal Bureau of Inquisition Director Unfreeh must,
as rumors have long had it, have the goods on Janet Reno and Bill Clinton.
Left to our imagination what these items may be.

How else to explain how a nominally "civil liberties President" is
presiding over the full transition to a national security state? This from
the draft-dodging, dope-smoking Oxford hippie who claimed he would be the
civil liberties President.

Nothing left to do but nuke the bastards, figuratively.

(I'd say "literally," but I don't have access to the suitcase nukes now
available in the Middle East. And, as we talked about in Cypherpunks, the
suitcase demolition charges are pretty good for knocking out dams and
closing mountain passes, but pretty crummy for leveling buildings several
hundred meters away.)

Monkeywrench GAK, put "Big Brother Inside" stickers on Brother's mandated
equipment, sabotage the corporate GAK efforts (we have supporters buried
deeply in nearly all crypto efforts at nearly all crypto and computer
companies, as anyone can confirm), and establish closer links to other
organizations opposed to the U.S. government.

This may sound radical, but look at the utter radicalism of banning private
communications, of felonizing the use of a damned crypto program, of
allowing intelligence agents to access medical files without court order,
and on and on and on.

Fuck them all. Lock and load. Rock and roll.

--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."

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:

> I'm beginning to think Federal Bureau of Inquisition Director Unfreeh must,
> as rumors have long had it, have the goods on Janet Reno and Bill Clinton.
> Left to our imagination what these items may be.

I don't know if I'd go that far. Though look at J. Edgar Hoover. Nixon
tried to fire him twice, asked him to come into the Oval Office for a
private meeting. Each time Hoover emerged unscathed, allegedly because of
the contents of his secret files.

The feeding frenzy and chaos in Washington after Hoover's death was, by
all accounts, amazing. Who would maintain control of his files?
(Ultimately, his secretary did. Shredded some, hid some of them in
Hoover's house.) 

-Declan

J. Lasser wrote:
> In the wise words of David H Dennis: 

> > Libertarians 
> > Liberal
> 
> 'Liberal' 
>  _civil_ libertarians

  When you two 'wise' men are done playing kissy-face, why don't
you get together and build some bombs?
  Debating class is over, it's time to move into the Lab.

  If you guys are serious about what you are discussing, just wait
a couple of years and ask your jailer's opinion.
  In the end, he will have the last say, anyway.

Fuck You
~~~~~~~~