From: jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 01:57:21 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Encryption and the NII (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <9311292042.AA26726@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Message-ID: <9311300954.AA07804@ininx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Newsgroups: talk.politics.crypto,comp.org.eff.talk
> From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
> Subject: [NWU] "Encryption and the NII"
> Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 18:38:50 GMT

> [This is an excerpt from the Newsletter of The Political Issues
> Committee of the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) Address
> Correspondence to: Bob Chatelle, 296 Western Avenue, Cambridge MA
> 02139 (617/497-7193). The full newsletter was posted to
> alt.censorship.

> (c) 1993 National Writers Union. Posted with permission from the
> November 1993 issue of the PIC Newsletter, the journal of the
> Political Issues Committee.  All rights reserved to the authors.
> Reproduction without permission is expressly prohibited, but requests
> to repost articles on electronic systems serving writers are
> encouraged.  Send permission requests to Bob Chatelle,
> kip@world.std.com -cmk]

>        Encryption and the NII, by Jenevra Georgini

> ... This would provide a
> digital "signature" (or perhaps "fingerprint" would be a
> better term; signatures can be forged but private keys are
> given to only one person).

NO!  She is not ``given'' the key.  That would imply that it is known to
someone else!  She makes the key herself using tools provided for that
purpose.

This is a serious misconception.  Public key encryption does not depend
on any ``authority'' for issuing keys.  She is the only one anywhere who
need know the key.

Please correct this misconception in your mind and others with whom you
discuss the subject.  It can cause public key encryption to become
identified in people's minds with hierarchical authority, which it
emphatically is not.  The author takes control of her own privacy and
need not rely on anyone else to maintain it.

> Of course, the larger and more powerful government
> machines can crack any private citizens (sic) 140-digit code in a
> day.

Why then would a ``private citizen'' limit herself to 140 digits?  The
software is readily available for her to use a key large enough that
cracking it is not feasible even by government.

> -- 
> Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
>  = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLPsXl8Dhz44ugybJAQHfuAQArB99cSIYkrOmzNEUKzJlCSrY9BJiZ/VC
yIVaVrjwLDBrbgdgYRNaV86mNJ0WLs7XLcui5dO6IHrRRAF5bcsB8TZsHUfY8M0g
1uEG8eriMrVsM1RprSEG769aHHiWhTn1jFELwlOFbdKvGqhDuYmpk0XoevsSDQ9J
Kki7N0jiaLM=
=1d/v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----