From: khijol!erc@apple.com (Ed Carp)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 03:38:44 PDT
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Cypherpunks, keep your powder dry....
In-Reply-To: <9308060847.AA18069@netcom5.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <m0oOP35-000246C@khijol>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> Ed Carp writes:
> 
> > >      She also conclused that getting criminals to use the system
> > >      will be a problem.  As a solution, Denning suggests legislation
> > >      tlat places some constraints on the use of other products.  This
> > >      would force them to come up with their own solutions, costing them
> > >      time and money that they might not be willing to sacrifice, she
> > >      explains.m 
> > 
> > Nonsense.  I can already see a market, either black, gray, or otherwise,
> > for non-Clipper/Skipjack devices.  In fact, I'd REALLY be surprised if
> > people haven't already come up with them on their own.  How hard could it
> > be to throw together an 80386-based embedded system, put PGP in ROM, add
> > a couple of A/D converters, and *presto* - instant privacy.  Add table
> > lookup (programmable from the phone pad, of course, based on the number
> > dialed) and you've got a pretty decent PEP (privacy-enhanced phone) :)
> 
> At the risk of stating the obvious, I think it is precisely schemes
> like this that Denning was referring to. These are what she wants to
> target.

My apologies - I guess I wasn't clear.  Waht I meant was, does she honestly
think that people *won't* do what I suggested, just because there are laws
forbidding it?  If she does, she is surely living in a dreamworld.

> Several groups have proposed crypto phones, most using CELP and
> SoundBlaster-type cards for PCs. Recall that the Cypherpunks in
> Silicon Valley, Washington, D.C., and Boston/Cambridge linked up with
> encrypted audio links (albeit briefly). Such things are possible, for
> sure.

Not to mention the infamous 'netphone' :)

> But as "street corner drug dealers" start to use encryption (it could
> happen...the "phase changes" to beepers and cellular phones happened
> in a matter of months), there will be calls for restrictions to "keep
> "unbreakable codes' out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

At the risk of stating the obvious:

I think 'could' can very probably be changed to '*will*'.  So, how are
they going to keep '"unbreakable codes' out of the hands of criminals and
terrorists'?  Laws are obeyed by the 99% of society who are law-abiding
(generally speaking, that is), yet laws are made targeting the 1% of the
population who couldn't care less.

> As several others have noted, various nonlegislative measures can be
> used....requirements for certification of all "devices" attached to
> phone lines might be one such measure (never mind the futility of
> enforcement). The ban on using crypto in ham radio transmissions is
> illustrative. 

Yes, but remember, most hams are law-abiding, since a ham radio license
is not a right.

> If Denning and her associates are already talking about the need to
> make non-Clipper use more difficult (read: outlawed), then it is
> likely the legislation is already being drawn up in some form.

Of course it is!  But that won't stop anyone but the DAvid Sternlights of the
world from using crypto.  Can't the folks in DC plainly *see* that??

Time to go to bed - I've got an 11 AM interview.  Anyone know of any sysadmin
contracts out there?? :)
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG			erc@apple.com			510/659-9560
                            anon-2133@twwells.com
If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"