From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 22:56:45 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: NYT article - WOW
Message-ID: <9309220552.AA15068@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Markoff has written a BRILLIANT article. Virtually all the facts are
right on, and he dances around the technical issues expertly, cutting
to the core. This is FANTASTIC fodder for the cypherpunk cause!
Probably just what PRZ dreamed of when he first wrote PGP :) Does
anyone know Markoff's email address?

Some minor idiosyncrasies, though.

>Receiving the Federal subpoenas were Viacrypt, a Phoenix company
>that plans to sell a licensed version of P.G.P., and Austin Code
>Works of Austin, Tex., which is selling a version of P.G.P. for
>other software developers to incorporate their own programs.

Say what? this is false, from what I understand. *Maybe* `selling a
version of RSA'? There is a rumor that G. Ward intended to include PGP
in distribution disks, unconfirmed. But so far it appears there is very
little related between G. Ward and PGP.

>The
>grand jury subpoenas, which the companies received Sept. 9

from what I can figure out so far, ViaCrypt got theirs on Tuesday, G.
Ward on Thursday. This from their online statements.

But it could have happened on the same day. Note that getting *served*
a subpoena on the same day is very interesting -- if they were just
dated on the same day and received at different times, that would be
more realistic. If they were *served* simultaneously, that implies some
kind of systematic coordination. Did somebody want to make sure that
both places were hit exactly at the same time? Did they anticipate the
rapid-fire explosion in cyberspace that would ensue? Remember, the
grand jury is in California -- it would take some planning to have the
summons *received* simultaneously. Don't they have to be delivered in
person by agents?

>Both publishers said they had no plans to sell their products
>abroad.  

hee, hee. I wonder what Austin Code Works would think of G. Ward's
Usenet postings...

Pres. Leonard Mikus of ViaCrypt
>"They're on a fishing expedition [...]

hm, I wonder where I saw that term used before?

>President Clinton alluded to the problems of controlling
>distribution of software technology in a speech last week promoting
>the North American Free Trade Agreement.  
>
>"Nothing we do in this great capital can change the fact that
>factories or information can flash across the world, that people
>can move money around in the blink of an eye," the President said.
>"Nothing can change the fact that technology can be adopted, once
>created, by people all across the world and then rapidly adapted in
>new and different ways by people who have a little different take
>on the way that technology works."

holy *cow* -- this sounds like something John Barlow of EFF would
write! he almost appears to be alluding to *digital cash*! Obviously,
Mr. President forgot to clear his remarks with the NSA first! Saying
things like this, perhaps we should start a cypherpunk feed to
president@whitehouse.com!  cypherpunks, who'd ever have thought we'd
have something from Mr. President for our signatures?! `technology
rapidly adapted in new and different ways by people who have a little
different take on the way that technology works' -- this is virtually
from the Cypherpunk Charter. GAD!

>"There is a First Amendment right to speak in a encrypted way,"
>said Eben Moglen, a professor of law and legal history at Columbia
>University who is familiar with the case.  "The right to speak
>P.G.P. is like the right to speak Navajo.  The Government has no
>particular right to prevent you from speaking in a technical manner
>even if it is inconvenient for them to understand."

wow, this is *awesome* press. First time I've seen the constitutional
aspect of cryptography dealt with. Markoff has got to be my absolute
favorite writer. 

this is all what is called `bitter joy' ...