Re: Can I do Pubkic Domain that -

Are you looking for access to the MISTY source code? It's still illegal to
export it pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if that appeal
fails, Congress will likely pass amended laws and/or the NSA/Commerce Dept
will issue revised regulations on the same day that an unfavourable decision
is announced.

Those guys just never learn that not only is the barn door open, but that
contents were never theirs to begin with.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nobuki Nakatuji <bd1011@hotmail.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 6:22 PM
Subject: Can I do Pubkic Domain that -


>Can I do Pubkic Domain that I posted MISTY source code before?
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

At 06:33 PM 12/17/97 -0800, Bruce Balden wrote:
>
>Those guys just never learn that not only is the barn door open, but that
>contents were never theirs to begin with.
>

They blew their chance to regulate *computers* as military tech.
Computers, after all, were developed by the military for ballistic, bombs,
and codes.  



------------------------------------------------------------
      David Honig                   Orbit Technology
     honig@otc.net                  Intaanetto Jigyoubu

	M-16 : Don Quixote :: PGP : Louis Freeh
         Let freedom ring (or screech at 28.8)

At 12:58 PM 12/18/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>At 12:04 PM -0700 12/18/97, David Honig wrote:
>>At 06:33 PM 12/17/97 -0800, Bruce Balden wrote:
>>>
>>>Those guys just never learn that not only is the barn door open, but that
>>>contents were never theirs to begin with.
>>>
>>
>>They blew their chance to regulate *computers* as military tech.
>>Computers, after all, were developed by the military for ballistic, bombs,
>>and codes.
>
>I can't follow your logic here. Several points:


I was alluding to the licensing of ordinary photocopiers and fax machines
(and computers, 
and now internet connections) in statist nations, to prevent their "misuse".  
In the 50's, the government should have 
(from the control point of view) used the hysteria of the times to regulate
*domestic* use of reprogrammable computers.  

As far as justification, bring up the baddies and the sheep cower: the
communist dope smoking child
pornographers with ties to Libya.  What's a little liberty for security? :-<


>* Nor is it clear that computers were developed "for" military uses. True,
>some earlier computers were used by the military, and the development bill
>was paid for by the military. But unless specific patents are involved,
>such early uses most definitely do not give the military control over later
>developments!
>
>(Nor do I think the military played the dominant role. I have long heard
>about how the space program caused the microprocessor to be invented.
>Nonsense. I was at Intel from 1974 to 1986, and have also read many
>histories of the 1960s developements, and can argue without fear of
>correction that neither military nor NASA spending had much if anything to
>do with the developments.)
>
>--Tim May
>


The develoment of computers can be traced along numerous threads.  One
thread (from say the 40's to 50's)
traces the encouragement of the codebreaking, ballistics, h-bomb fluid
dynamics, and missile
control community.  

By the 50's the computer was done, and improvements were just making better
implementations.

It is admittedly oversimplifying to follow only one thread (e.g., only
mathematical or engineering development),
but in the early days (way before intel) computers were built for the uses
I describe.




------------------------------------------------------------
      David Honig                   Orbit Technology
     honig@otc.net                  Intaanetto Jigyoubu

	M-16 : Don Quixote :: PGP : Louis Freeh
         Let freedom ring (or screech at 28.8)

At 06:39 PM 12/18/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>At 2:54 PM -0700 12/18/97, David Honig wrote:
>
>>I was alluding to the licensing of ordinary photocopiers and fax machines
>>(and computers,
>>and now internet connections) in statist nations, to prevent their "misuse".
>>In the 50's, the government should have
>>(from the control point of view) used the hysteria of the times to regulate
>>*domestic* use of reprogrammable computers.
>
>Nope. The government of the United States had no authority in the 1950s to
>regulate fax machines (which existed then), mimeograph machines (which
>existed then), or computers (which existed then).
>
>Perhaps you were thinking of the Soviet Union?
>
>--Tim May


Soviets, China, etc.  I was being facetious.  I understand that our pesky
constitution
prevents certain government behaviors, but they're working to eliminate
that problem.

cheers


------------------------------------------------------------
      David Honig                   Orbit Technology
     honig@otc.net                  Intaanetto Jigyoubu

	M-16 : Don Quixote :: PGP : Louis Freeh
         Let freedom ring (or screech at 28.8)

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, David Honig wrote:

> I was alluding to the licensing of ordinary photocopiers and fax machines
> (and computers, 
> and now internet connections) in statist nations, to prevent their "misuse".  

Except for the statist nation I (and I believe you) live in:  USA (United 
Socialist America) does not currently require a license to own or operate 
computers, photocopiers, and fax machines.

______________________________________________________________________
Jon Galt
e-mail:  jongalt@pinn.net
website:  http://www.pinn.net/~jongalt/
PGP public key available on my website.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
______________________________________________________________________

At 12:04 PM -0700 12/18/97, David Honig wrote:
>At 06:33 PM 12/17/97 -0800, Bruce Balden wrote:
>>
>>Those guys just never learn that not only is the barn door open, but that
>>contents were never theirs to begin with.
>>
>
>They blew their chance to regulate *computers* as military tech.
>Computers, after all, were developed by the military for ballistic, bombs,
>and codes.

I can't follow your logic here. Several points:

* The government _has_ regulated the export of computers for a long time,
in the COCOM rules, and still in other rules covering computers. (A famous
benchmark was how fast a computer or other system could compute a
particular FFT--any faster than some threshold and the computer could not
be freely exported, least of all to various Bad Nations.)

* As for "regulate *computers* as military tech," domestically, there are
very, very few technologies the government has the authority to regulate
domestically. Nuclear and biological weapons are one example (with specific
enabling legislation). A few other technologies. (For example, making a gun
in one's machine shop can violate various confusing gun laws.) But the
"regulate *computers* as military tech" line just doesn't make sense.

* Nor is it clear that computers were developed "for" military uses. True,
some earlier computers were used by the military, and the development bill
was paid for by the military. But unless specific patents are involved,
such early uses most definitely do not give the military control over later
developments!

(Nor do I think the military played the dominant role. I have long heard
about how the space program caused the microprocessor to be invented.
Nonsense. I was at Intel from 1974 to 1986, and have also read many
histories of the 1960s developements, and can argue without fear of
correction that neither military nor NASA spending had much if anything to
do with the developments.)

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

At 2:54 PM -0700 12/18/97, David Honig wrote:

>I was alluding to the licensing of ordinary photocopiers and fax machines
>(and computers,
>and now internet connections) in statist nations, to prevent their "misuse".
>In the 50's, the government should have
>(from the control point of view) used the hysteria of the times to regulate
>*domestic* use of reprogrammable computers.

Nope. The government of the United States had no authority in the 1950s to
regulate fax machines (which existed then), mimeograph machines (which
existed then), or computers (which existed then).

Perhaps you were thinking of the Soviet Union?

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

"Bruce Balden" <balden@mail.bc.rogers.wave.ca> writes:

>
> Are you looking for access to the MISTY source code?

No, thank you.

---

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