From: "L. Todd Masco" <cactus@bb.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 13:15:36 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: (fwd) "Will You Be a Terrorist?"
In-Reply-To: <199409171951.MAA13788@netcom13.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199409172020.QAA20917@bb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Timothy C. May writes:
 > I didn't they *are* singled out, just that the Crime Act has some
 > implications for remailers, should the authorities seek to apply the
 > law.

Didn't mean to imply you were: I was just thinking that this is the
first legal manifestation of using the threat of a Horseman against
anonymity on the net, of any sort.

 > > In any case, perhaps a way around this can be found: what we may
 > > need is "stealth remailers," software that will behave as a remailer
 > > through non-obvious "security holes" with correct cooperation from
 > > software the original user runs.  
 > 
 > Any port 25 in a storm? Exploitation of holes is a classic case of
 > "security through obscurity," useful only for short periods of time,
 > and never very certain.

Well, "security holes" is a bit loose of a term;  I was thinking out loud,
as it were.  The concept, as evolved later, is to distribute a set of
features to be added to the RFC-822 protocol that will allow security,
including remailer support (though not stated as such).

This isn't really an STO: it's more the providing a suite of features:
including features that we want along with features that will help spread
the whole set. 

 > Stealth remailers is a good thing to work on, I agree. I'd first
 > settle for having more offshore remailers. 

Sure.  But that doesn't help the channel between inside the US and 
outside -- IE, the channels that the NSA is chartered to eavesdrop
on (yes, as Eric likes to say: the NSA and the FBI are different.  But
imagine that at some point in the future the NSA, hard pressed to justify
its existence, starts passing data to other agencies).  Right now, there
aren't that many IP channels to outside the country, so they're pretty
easy to tap.

 > Under the Crime Act and RICO statutes, we may be committing consiracy
 > merely by talking amongst ourselves. (Maybe this is an exaggeration,
 > as I'm not a lawyer and have no desire to become one.)

That thought crossed my mind, too, but since we aren't talking about any
illegal activities, merely protocols that might facilitate the same while
also facilitating privacy, I think we're fine.  Of course, given the
stretches made by Law Enforcement for civil forfeitures, the E911
Neidorf thing, and others, perhaps it's time to start seriously
looking at hacking list software to create mailing lists that are fully
anonymous and encrypted.  Has anybody started on such a project?
--
L. Todd Masco  | "A man would simply have to be as mad as a hatter, to try and
cactus@bb.com  |  change the world with a plastic platter." - Todd Rundgren