From: rarachel@prism.poly.edu (Arsen Ray Arachelian)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 94 09:29:31 PDT
To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: PC Expo summary!!
In-Reply-To: <9407011213.AA16156@snark.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <9407031617.AA01489@prism.poly.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> > > >                   FEB 17  CYPHERPUNKS TRANSCRIPT
> > > >     Copyright (C) 1994, cypherpunks@toad.com  All Rights Reserved.      
> > >                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > I wonder how the courts will interpret that ;)
> > 
> > This will certainly put a nice toad up the NSA's ass.   Anyone reading this
> > will see that the cypherpunks are a bunch of folk that stick together as a
> > single entity whose purpose right now is to kill clipper.
 
> That wasn't the topic of the discussion in question, actually. It was
> largely just a discussion on cryptography in general and its
> implications, slanted towards anarchists, who were the audiance being
> addressed. Most of the population is extremely hostile to anarchism,
> so from a PR point of view that talk isn't what you want. Also, it
> unfairly makes it look like "cypherpunk" means "anarchist". Now, it
> happpens that I am an anarchist, but that isn't what most people
> associated with the term "cypherpunk" believe in, and it isn't fair to
> paint them that way -- hell, many people on this mailing list are
> overtly hostile to anarchism.

I agree.  However, I was severely pressed for time, and this was the best
resource I could find that dealt with most of the issues dealing with Clipper.
I don't think it made anarchist==cypherpunk, though granted some folks would
take it that way.  Certainly a cypherpunk is nothing more than somone who
uses crypto for his privacy and demands strong crypto. However the transcript
did offer a lot of information as to what the uses are both legal and illegal
and what the dangers of weak crypto & clipper.

I did ask around for beginners articles & was told to write some up myself.
I would have, had I not been pressed for time.  As I said in the pc-expo
summary, I had to write lots of software, and weed though about 900 files that
I captured off this list to see what I can use.  None of them had as much raw
info as this file.  In the heading to this file, I did write "Please forgive
the political slant of this file and instead look at the info it provides"
or something like it.  While that won't really make much different for those
who'd say "Damn anarchists," it made me feel better. :-)

> I don't want people to think you have to hate the idea of government
> in order to like cryptography.

This wasn't my original intention, but unless someone (even myself) writes
a nice big text file on all the issues from clipper, to rsa, to patents to
pgp to even Tempest and IR face scans at the airport, this was the best resource
I could find.  Even Tim wasn't able to help out.   I had little choice.  IT
was either include this file and offend some readers, or don't include it and
leave them clueless.  Which would you rather had me do?

Now keep in mind that about 30% of the disk receivers will never see any
articles because of my big mistake in the installation script, and the rest
will figure out how to get it, or won't be interested so they won't see it...

> The copyright is also meaningless because a non-person (human or
> corporate) cannot copyright something. Certainly an email address
> can't hold a copyright. In any case I consider it a little odd that I
> would not under your copyright be permitted to sell someone a copy of
> my own words.

You obviously can sell someone a copy of it.  You wrote it, it's under your
copyright more than the cypherpunks.  You have to keep in mind that the visuals
of this disk were to make it look like some big corporation was putting out
demo software. Not a bunch of loosely connected folks who know each other
only via email (mostly anyway.)  Putting a copyright notice on it certainly
brings this out more.  Also the title of the disk wasn't "Cypherpunks Disks"
it was "Data Security & Privacy\n A Free Software Demo"  In small letters
it stated that PGP & SecureDevice & WNS were on the disk.

I also put "For demo/educational uses only" and "NOT FOR EXPORT"  All this
lends itself to look professional rather than freewareish.  I'll send ya
a copy of the disk if you like; you'll see that the installer program is also
of the "professional" look & feel.  Or at least as much as I could make it
look professional in the short time that I had.

> Lastly, I don't know what was on that disk exactly, but I've started
> getting calls from random kooks about it. I find that a bit
> disturbing. Did you leave my phone number on it or something?

Nope. Not unless you're in the phone book.  The random cooks could be
press folks as I did give out quite a few copies to them.  So try & find out
if they are or not.  If anything, you can tell'em I did the disk and give'em
my work number (212-412-8475) and I'll deal with them.

The only thing referring to you was your name.  I don't think I even included
your email address... I did include "for more info, send email to cypherpunks@
toad.com" and told them how to subscribe and to expect tons of email if they
do.  I didn't even put my address on it.  My name is only on the copyright
notices of the installer, menu, and file viewer programs.  I didn't put my
email address\, nor phone number, nor anything else except my name on the disk.

As far as copyright is concerned, while we are just a "mailing list" we can
also be thought as an organization.  We are "organized" and our address is
only on the internet.  The method of organization is anarchy.  None the less
we aren't any less of an organization than any other.  We just don't operate
in the same way IBM or MicroSoft, or EFF or EPIC does.  Does that mean we
can't copyright stuff in the cypherpunks name?  I don't know, I'm not a lawyer
and I agree with you that it probably wouldn't hold true infront of a 
copyright judge or a copyright lawyer.  None the less, it was put there for
effect and it did its job for effect, not for copyright.


If you want to sell the disk, you can't, except for the cost of duplicating
the disk. ie: user groups, etc.  If you want to sell your speech, you can.
It's yours and nobody claims any copyright owenership to it.  If Dave Mandl
wants to sell it, he too can. :-)  Now I wouldn't be able to sell it and I
haven't, and neither can any cypherpunk on this list.   Again the disk itself
is copyrighted as a collection.  I didn't claim that cypherpunks had ownership
of PGP, WinPGP, WNSTORM, SecureDevice, or the articles.  Infact a lot of the
Wired articles were on it (with their own copyright notices of course.)  If
the Libertarians want to "Sell" copies of the transcript I guess they could if
it were okay with you and Dave.

(For those of you unfamiliar with a collection copyright, it's basically a
copyright on a collection of things that are either copyrighted or public
domain (if they're copyrighted, they can still be distributed, but that
strongly depends on the real owner of the copyright.)  If someone else takes
the same collection of files and sells it, he is violating the collection
copyright.)

Now all this aside, I doubt that I'd actually go and sue PC Magazine for
selling the disks at $100 a pop.  Of course the guy getting his hands on the
disk might notice he was had, but that's another thing.