From: crunch@netcom.com (John Draper)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 00:11:33 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: My comments on the Clipper or Tapper chip,
Message-ID: <9304190711.AA12484@netcom4.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I don't know wheter or not I should post this in alt.security.pgp,
or other newsgroups,   but here's my official comments on what
I think of the Clinton Adm "Clipper" or "Tapper" chip.  Any press
people are welcome to use it,  and feel free to send it out 
wherever it will help.

My official statement and comments on the "Tapper chip"
=======================================================

  I believe that the Clintom Admin is trying to push this idea through
without giving much thought on the ramifications of this rather intreguing
idea of "registering" your keys with some government agency.   This
overwhelming urge to "tap into" our private conversations is just going
to promote private encryption and voice scrambling.   It is not going
to make law enforcement's job any easier to catch criminals,  because 
they will also encrypt their voice and data.  It reminds me of that
popular bumper sticker "If guns are outlawed,  then only outlaws will
have guns".   It is clear that the government considers encryption as
a "weapon",  used by the enemy to keep nosey people away.  Look at
the current export laws to convince yourself of that.   I guess I
can think of it as a weapon to preserve my privacy.

  This is not only going to get a bad reception in the industry,  but
it will cost the government more money by adding huge administration
costs.   Talk about government "FAT"?    I thought our goals are to
cut government spending,   not add to it.    Lets see!!  You need
two agencys (Hopefully ones that people can trust).   Gee!!  I cannot
even think of just ONE agency that I can trust!!  can you?    Then,
these agencys have to keep track of one half of an 80 bit key.   
I guess there is one key for each "clipper" chip,  so there has to be
the capability of millions of keys,   each one has to perfectly match
the other half.    Then there will be people needed to "register" these
"tapper" phones.    Lets not even think about what happens when one
decides to sell it!!    MORE government FAT!!.   I guess thats why
they're called FAT CATS.

  Now,  if I were a criminal,   do you think I would be dumb enough to
"register" my phone with the government.   Of course not.    I would
probably get mine on the black market,  or though some other illicit
means!!   If I were a law abiding citizen,  would I trust some government
agency with my encryption key?   Would you??

  Then,  there is this classified algorithm used in the clipper chip 
itself.    I'm sure its pretty good,   and it is probably hard to attack
and crack.    But can you really be absolutely sure that there isn't some
sort of "back door" in it??    

  It is clear that the industry hasn't been consulted,  or ideas were
not put forth in some public forum.   So,  where is this democratic
process??   We ARE still a democracy,  aren't we?

  How was this company that sells the "Clipper chip" selected??   Was
RSA data security people contacted??

  It is clear that a lot of questions have to be answered before something
like this can be accepted.   I just hope the right people make the right
decision,  and that PRIVATE encryption be the responsibility of the user,  
and NOT the carriers.

   It is important that more and more private encryption programs,  equipment,
etc,  can be made available on the market.    If RSA is two tight with
their licensing fees and policys,  then there should be more math whiz 
types making better algorithms than RSA's.    The field is wide open,  so
lets exploit them!!

John D.