From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 09:37:37 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: On crypto language
In-Reply-To: <9401271607.AA25462@media.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <9401271730.AA05163@ah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


This is a rant, touched off by an egregious example.

An MIT talk:
>		      Title:  Tracing Traitors
>		  by Amos Fiat, Tel Aviv University
>
> We give cryptographic schemes that help identify the source of a leak.
> Such schemes are relevant in the context of pay television, and easily
> combine and complement the broadcast encryption schemes of Fiat and Naor.

With no disrespect to Fiat personally, this title indicates one of the
seriously Bad with a capital B things about the modern crypto
community.

Does "Traitors" really belong in a "pay television" context?  Please.
The implication is this: Hook up for a second copy of 'Beauty and the
Beast' and be killed by firing squad in a secret Disneyland star
chamber.

Crypto can make strong systems for good or for ill.  Governmental
mandated digital signatures on required-to-be-public documents would
be *worse* than we have now.  We should always beware of making sure
are systems actually do what we want them to.

In the same vein, we should not lead others to believe that our
systems are designed for purposes other than what we intend.  The
descriptive language we use will create the first impressions, the
connotative impressions, of what we are doing.  Do we want to be
hunting 'traitors' or nabbing 'cheaters'?  Save that for someone who
wishes to pay a government for a police state.

One would think from reading the crypto literature that the modern
crypto community was employed by FINCEN to chase criminals, with all
the talk of 'cheaters'.  Make no mistake, I believe this to be
actually true in part, although the connection is semiotic rather than
direct.  Always, always beware of the uses of a system.

Here is my rule for describing protocols.

	Never use a word which connotes an intention to the
	cause of a protocol failure.

'Cheater' implies intent to defraud.  'Double spender' includes actual
cheaters as well as software and network failures.

'Spoofer' implies intent to lie about identity.  'Interposer'
describes an agent which is placed in the middle, which might be there
in order to spoof, but also applies to a router.

'Eavesdropper' implies intent to remain secret while listening, and a
'spy' is an eavesdropper with malign intent.  'Listener' merely
describes the listening.

'Enemy' is someone who wishes you harm.  'Opponent' is someone to whom
one is in opposition, which includes both enemies and a chess partner.

We communicate the protocols with mathematics but our own intentions
by our choice of words.

Eric