From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 00:58:36 PST
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: "You aren't following the _rules_!"
Message-ID: <199411290857.AAA06729@netcom20.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Tim wrote:

>I have little means of solving the Netcom-Macintosh-elm-Eudora issues,
>and I don't see others solving them especially cleanly or usably, so I
>expect that the "sign your messages or else" dictum would have a
>predictable result, for me.

I don't want to restart the "If the output wont work on a stack of
Hollister cards the system sucks" thread, but Tim is here, as he is most of
the time, right. After two years, we still have not made it much simpler to
integrate PGP/whatever into a mixed OS environment.

>And isn't it up to the _readers_ to decide if they don't want to read
>my messages because they think I'm not being diligent enought, or
>because my messages appear to be forged?

Few readers on this list would think that Tim is not dilligent enough. A
forged message would not be able to fool us for long. The problems is that
is no simple way to integrate PGP with the many newsreaders, mailers, etc.,
that are being used on the net. This is unlikely to change until there is a
new, acceptable, RFC for mail that implements digital signatures and
encyption (if desired) without user intervention.

>Isn't end-user choice the core of the Cypherpunk ethos?

Yes, choice is what Cypherpunks are (I hope) about. Choice through crypto.
Unless crypto spreads we will face ever reduced choice. Crypto will not
spread unless there is a demand.

Most people, including one of (the?) leading thinker(s) of the group on the
net that most supports cryptography believe that the added security and
privacy that cryptography provides are not worth typing a few commands or
clicking a few buttons. I myself rarely, if ever, sign my post. If WE don't
even use crypto ourselves, who do you think else uses it and who do you
think will therfore care if the government chooses to outlaw it?

We don't have a motivation to use crypto. We all realize that there is
really no need to encrypt/sign the vast majority of the stuff we are
sending. There may be the occasional message that we will encrypt and we
are well aware that we encrypt that message for the very reasons that the
powers-that-be want to see encryption outlawed.

There are no better tools for integration of crypto today, because there
has been no need. The few times you actually need crypto you can punch the
commands "by hand".

I do not mean to belittle the work that has been done, but unless the
encryption is built into the mailer and using a remailer means clicking the
"use  X remailer(s)" button, and the mailer better know which ones are
working and do the PGP envelopes, it won't happen.

Hell, I have been on this list for two years and today I decided against
posting that updater everyone was begging for to USENET because I didn't
want to spend the 15 minutes it would take me to look up the address of a
mail-to-usenet gateway, find out which remailers are working, binhex the
thing, and past it into the remailer interface. Yes, I know the 3 or 4
URL's it would take to do all that.  Suppose the world will have to wait
until that computer makers's FTP site is up again. <No, I don't see
anything wrong with posting software that is available via FTP to USENET.
Flames -> /dev/null>

We are stuck: No need -> no development of tools -> no spreading of crypto
beyond the "hard core" -> no public resitance when crypto becomes illegal.


So how can we prevent crypto from becomming illegal? Just follow the above
chain backwards. Create a need. Create mailing lists that require signed
messages. Create ftpsites that require signed uploads or whatever. Require
the use of crypto. Not to partake in some involuntary interaction with the
government (that will happen without out help), but for some voluntary
interactions between people on the net. Sending mail to cypherpunks is such
a voluntary interaction. Requiring it here just might result in better
tools in the long run. Just an idea, if it sounds like garbage, forget
about it.

- -Lucky, who wouldn't think of signing this post and only does it to show
that requiring it for posting just might get people to do it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui

iQCVAgUBLtrswASQkem38rwFAQFZ0AQAixcrK7wNFJzisuA3v8FefURUt05NYj23
AyJw9TVoyWuo4gdDiao1/3dC43ZIgVSvTTGXKZ8cy5a4YcFyMLMEKumNfyn7FM/l
PLzcOYXfCWp2/KlfY4cQs4nlUEDvheiTmgXE+2VRle00WHwL+ctm/Tx1i/mxD3BS
7Zo79IIOQyg=
=ZSOT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----