RE: Junger et al.

I don't understand ...

Did anyone demonstrate the "functionalness" of any arbitrary language
via a scanner and a compiler?

Why doesn't Gwin understand that the moment one successfully claims that
a specific class of source code is not speech by the virtue of the fact
that a compiler can transform it automatically into executable code
which performs a function, then ANY speech of ANY sort is fundamentally
vulnerable to being classified as functional as soon as a compiler can
transform it into real machine code.

So today, I can write the following:

1.	Find a container.
2.	Fill container with explosive substance.
3.	Move container to target location.
4.	Detonate container.

As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these
instructions, suddenly this is not speech.  However, before this
compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is
speech!

How could this be?

Ern

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com]
	Sent:	Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM
	To:	cypherpunks@toad.com
	Subject:	Junger et al.



	Reuters

	3:40pm  6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has
dismissed a law
	professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the
export of
	computer data-scrambling technology.

	Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which
prevented
	Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter
Junger from
	posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not
violate
	the constitutional right to free speech.

	The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court
ruling last
	August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes
telling
	the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of
speech
	subject to First Amendment protection.

	"Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually
performs
	the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides
	instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded
circuitry in
	a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption."

	Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a
version of source
	code converted into an actual software program that could be run
on a
	computer.

	The US government appealed the California decision and the issue
may
	ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

	Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court
would
	overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses
	mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it
unreadable
	without a password or software "key."

	Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an
increasingly
	critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global
communications
	over the Internet.

	But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by
terrorists
	and international criminals to hide their activities, have
instituted
	strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling
products.

	Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court
misunderstood the
	difference between source code and compiled code.

	"The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative
nature of
	software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic
Frontier
	Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions,
but it
	does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is
speech
	deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection."




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	 james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson@bigfoot.com>
www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh
	 jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D
[06.07.98]
	 ceildh   :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9
[05.14.98]
	 ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu     ...and former sysop of
tnbnog BBS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, 
	standardized, and understood, in that order

=======================================================================_

At 03:11 AM 7/7/98 -0400, mgraffam@mhv.net wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Ernest Hua wrote:
>> Did anyone demonstrate the "functionalness" of any arbitrary language
>> via a scanner and a compiler?
>Indeed.. what we need is for someone to testify to the court about
>natural and computer language, and maybe some relevent material from
>information theory. 
>
>Pseudo-code from any computer programming textbook would be helpful
>in making this point too.
>
>What about English in a voice recognition system? In this case, English
>can actually perform functions too, just as C does.

A particularly relevent language is the Algorithmic Language, Algol,
which was designed for mathematicians to describe algorithms to each other,
though it was also designed in a way to support compilers,
such as ALGOL-60.
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Ernest Hua wrote:

>So today, I can write the following:
>
>1.	Find a container.
>2.	Fill container with explosive substance.
>3.	Move container to target location.
>4.	Detonate container.
>
>As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these
>instructions, suddenly this is not speech.  However, before this
>compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is
>speech!
>
>How could this be?

Gwin has written a phrase which deserves more analysis, IMO -- free
from political overtones if we want to be impartial. The phrase can
be reworded as:

  "source code is a device, that actually does a function"

The difference and importance here is between syntatic and semantics. 

Your 4-instruction source code above is not a device today -- it
cannot perform any function. It has only syntatics, not the "how to". 
But, if there were a machine that could supply the proper semantics
(ie, actually perform the functions 1-4) then your source code above
would be a device.  Further, your source code may not be a device
today but be a device tomorrow.

As another example, bringing together one pound of inert metal with
another one pound of the same inert metal was not considered to be
explosive -- until U235 was used for the inert metal and properly
compressed. The difference is semantic, not syntatic. 

In that, Gwin is correct. Can the source code actually perform a
function?  Then, it is a device. Irrespective of the needed platform,
in the same way that an electric shaver is a device irrespective of
the local availablity of an appropriate power outlet.

IMO, even though I consider Gwin to be correct to a very large
extent, widespread use of crypto will not come from lifiting such
bans ... but from real need -- which does not outweigh the hassle,
today. The EFF has a wrong target there. 

Do you know how much Internet e-mail traffic is encrypted today?  Can
you believe less than 10%? Notwithstanding the rethoric exercises and
limelight it may provide, talking about encryption export bans may
not be as effective as desigining better and easier uses of strong
crypto -- that can then really drive market, legislation and courts. 

Need to use is a better key than need to know, it seems.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

>
>Ern
>
>	-----Original Message-----
>	From:	jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com]
>	Sent:	Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM
>	To:	cypherpunks@toad.com
>	Subject:	Junger et al.
>
>
>
>	Reuters
>
>	3:40pm  6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has
>dismissed a law
>	professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the
>export of
>	computer data-scrambling technology.
>
>	Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which
>prevented
>	Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter
>Junger from
>	posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not
>violate
>	the constitutional right to free speech.
>
>	The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court
>ruling last
>	August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes
>telling
>	the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of
>speech
>	subject to First Amendment protection.
>
>	"Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually
>performs
>	the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides
>	instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded
>circuitry in
>	a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption."
>
>	Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a
>version of source
>	code converted into an actual software program that could be run
>on a
>	computer.
>
>	The US government appealed the California decision and the issue
>may
>	ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
>
>	Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court
>would
>	overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses
>	mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it
>unreadable
>	without a password or software "key."
>
>	Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an
>increasingly
>	critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global
>communications
>	over the Internet.
>
>	But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by
>terrorists
>	and international criminals to hide their activities, have
>instituted
>	strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling
>products.
>
>	Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court
>misunderstood the
>	difference between source code and compiled code.
>
>	"The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative
>nature of
>	software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic
>Frontier
>	Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions,
>but it
>	does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is
>speech
>	deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection."
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>	 james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson@bigfoot.com>
>www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh
>	 jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D
>[06.07.98]
>	 ceildh   :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9
>[05.14.98]
>	 ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu     ...and former sysop of
>tnbnog BBS
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>	Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, 
>	standardized, and understood, in that order
>
>=======================================================================_
>

______________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck                     egerck@novaware.cps.softex.br
http://novaware.cps.softex.br
    --- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---

On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Ernest Hua wrote:

> Did anyone demonstrate the "functionalness" of any arbitrary language
> via a scanner and a compiler?

Indeed.. what we need is for someone to testify to the court about
natural and computer language, and maybe some relevent material from
information theory. 

Pseudo-code from any computer programming textbook would be helpful
in making this point too.

What about English in a voice recognition system? In this case, English
can actually perform functions too, just as C does.


Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@mhv.net)
http://www.mhv.net/~mgraffam -- Philosophy, Religion, Computers, Crypto, etc
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.
Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the
guidance of another. . .Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own
understanding!" - Immanuel Kant "What is Enlightenment?"

On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 mgraffam@mhv.net wrote:

> Indeed.. what we need is for someone to testify to the court about
> natural and computer language, and maybe some relevent material from
> information theory. 

	What we need, IMO, is a well-placed stunt or two.

	On sci.crypt a while ago I mentioned that if perl-RSA got
	any smaller, one could make it the *subtitle* of one's next
	book:  "Blah blah blah:  what ``/usr/bin/perl blah blah blah
	...'' means."

	The result would be a book, with book-like 1st amendment
	protections, but which would turn ONLINE library card 
	catalogs into online repositories for strong crypto.  Need RSA?
	Look up the book, cut and paste into a shell.  Ta Daaaa!
	You're an evil terrorist.

	The point of this is to drive home the fact that while
	source code is something that *does* (i.e., a device),
	it's also something that *says*.  It's information, even
	if executable information, and cannot be dispatched as 
	easily as a gun or a bomb.  Should the government attempt
	to declare a book title a munition, it'll fer sure end up
	in CNN fringe.

> Pseudo-code from any computer programming textbook would be helpful
> in making this point too.

	You'd need to prove it easily runnable.  What's the tech
	status of OCR via, say, a minicam?  If you could just 
	hold a page of _Applied Crypto_ up to your computer and
	have it gleen C source (much easier than gleening English),
	It'll demonstrate the fuzziness of these things (again, IMO) 
	in much starker terms than would just using a scanner.

	Another project would be to collect all our number theory
	and abstract algebra books, and type in verbatim the sections
	on RSA.  These usually contain instructions somewhere between
	pseudocode and conversational English.  If someone could 
	for a Masters thesis develop a program capable of reading 
	that stuff...

							-Caj