From: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 94 12:03:03 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199407301901.OAA24480@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Is there a problem with the remailer at soda.berkeley.edu?
Or are they simply moving machines around, as the message
indicates? I received this "warning" message - 


(identifying headers removed) 



    **********************************************
    **      THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY      **
    **  YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE  **
    **********************************************


The Computer Science Division at the University of California at
Berkeley is in the process of moving into a brand new building.
This entails moving all machines.  If you are getting a warning
message that the individual's machine is not responding, you might
want to try to contact them using something other than e-mail.
Although we anticipate that most machines will be down for From owner-cypherpunks  Sat Jul 30 14:16:24 1994
Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks>
Received: by toad.com id AA24030; Sat, 30 Jul 94 14:16:24 PDT
Received: from MIT.EDU (ATHENA-AS-WELL.MIT.EDU) by toad.com id AA24024; Sat, 30 Jul 94 14:16:04 PDT
Received: from UA.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA04630; Sat, 30 Jul 94 17:15:58 EDT
From: solman@MIT.EDU
Received: by ua.MIT.EDU (5.57/4.7) id AA04787; Sat, 30 Jul 94 17:15:51 -0400
Message-Id: <9407302115.AA04787@ua.MIT.EDU>
To: gtoal@an-teallach.com (Graham Toal)
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow." 
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 30 Jul 94 14:08:23 +0100.
             <199407301308.OAA23358@an-teallach.com> 
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.3 4/7/94
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 94 17:15:50 EDT
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Precedence: bulk

> : From: solman@mit.edu
> 
> : This is a relatively inane conspiracy theory. Gates hardly requires any
> : assistance since the feds were already committed to setting up licenses
> : in bands that are good for these types of networks. Both the FCC and Hughes
> : have sped up their efforts towards these systems in recent days.
> 
> That's just the terrestrial side.  What about actually getting the birds up?

That's the easiest part. International competition for the precious
few organizations requiring launching facilities has almost entirely
elimintated government intervention in what goes up. Its just like
dealing with regulations made by physical world entities in cyberspace.
If you don't like the rules, it is easy to move it elsewhere.

> : will be too late and that B) software based escrows are a good thing 
because
> : they take the wind out of hardware based encryption efforts and they are
> : difficult to make mandatory.
> 
> This sort of talk is dangerous.  If cypherpunks don't have a united front
> against SKE, I can't see the less radical front organisations like EFF
> and CPSR (well, maybe just EFF) going balls to the wall against it either.

All we need is widely distributed software with optional escrow and the
government will be helpless against us. They won't have a prayer of passing
legislation that prevents you from using your software, so they'll pass
legislation that requires you to use escrows. People will register a key with
the escrow and then use a different key for everything. Escrow dies. Of
course we should fight anything mandating escrow, but the reality is that
if we can force the escrow into software it will be useless to big brother.

JWS