1994-06-20 - Re: Corporations and Encryption

Header Data

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
To: ecarp@netcom.com
Message Hash: 2f223553a25826d25cb50808b32e68e623e5dc7691abadc60671b020105861c2
Message ID: <199406200353.UAA18425@netcom5.netcom.com>
Reply To: <m0qFZYk-0004EbC@khijol.uucp>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-20 03:53:14 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 20:53:14 PDT

Raw message

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 20:53:14 PDT
To: ecarp@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Corporations and Encryption
In-Reply-To: <m0qFZYk-0004EbC@khijol.uucp>
Message-ID: <199406200353.UAA18425@netcom5.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Ed Carp writes:

> Clancy mentioned a scenario that corporations (and others) might be able to
> take advantage of - the so-called "Canary Trap".  Instead of identical copies
> of a sensitive memo being made, slightly different copies are prepared
> instead.  The meaning isn't changed, but the precise wording is, so that if
> someone quites verbatim, the precise wording will indicate which document
> was leaked, and hence the leaker.  I know for a fact that the United States
> and Canada use this for their classified material, at least some of it.

The "canary trap" is also called "barium" (coined by the KGB). Tagging
is sometimes useful, but can be found by XORing two or more

> > Along with "democracy," the term "civil rights" is bandied about too
> > much and is used to justify entirely too much State intervention.
> > Mutually agreed-upon contracts always take precedence over democracy
> > and civil rights. 
> This is not entirely true, as the courts have ruled that certain contractual
> agreements, even when made between consensual parties, may be null and
> void, because they go against public policy.  Consider if I contract with

Sure, courts have interfered with contracts. Some of these
interferences I even agree with, slightly (while I'm mostly an
anarchist, I support a few laws).

But my point was a judgement ("entirely too much" is a cue), not a
statement of realpolitik.

> The courts would rule that the contract had no force of law, because it
> essentially was a contrat to do something that was against public policy.
> Same with illegal "contracts" some companies coerce people into signing as
> a condition of employment.  The companies can argue that the employees signed
> them of their own free will, but the courts would hold that if the act was
> illegal, there can be no binding contract.

Crypto anarchy means a bypassing of such courts. Money held in escrow,
and reputatable (though anonymous) escrow agents will make such
contracts enforceable by other means.

--Tim May

Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."