From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 17:21:39 PST
To: paul.elliott@hrnowl.lonestar.org (Paul Elliott)
Subject: Re: GAK boycott, What are legal implications?
In-Reply-To: <30d9ca78.flight@flight.hrnowl.lonestar.org>
Message-ID: <199512220119.RAA23373@slack.lne.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Here is a question for all of you cyber legal types out there.
> This question presupposes:
> 
> The NIST will complete its work on the GAK standard. But no law will be
> passed (yet) regulating the use of encryption in the U. S. (The GAK standard
> is an attempt to create an environment in which such laws can be passed.)
> In the U.S., Big Company INC will start marketing a GAKed encryption
> product domesticly.
> 
> A bunch of cypherpunkish types will immediately try to organize a boycott
> against BIG COMPANY.

I think it's more likely that a group of people will work on
breaking Big Co's GAKed product.  Either finding a flaw
in it's algorithm or protocol that can be exploited, or
a flaw that renders it's GAK unusable, i.e. Matt Blaze's
LEAF hack on Clipper.

> What are the cypherpunks legal risks?
> 
> I seem to remember that back in the 70s, the NAACP lost a big case
>with respect to their boycott in a southern city. As I recall there were people
> in the street begging money for the NAACP because there was a > 10**6 $
> judgement against the NAACP and they needed that much just to appeal.

Well, NAACP is an actual organization with papers filed
with the IRS, officers or some sort of board members, offices, etc.

Cypherpunks is just a mailing list, and many of the members
of the list don't use their real identies on the list.

Who would they go after?


-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF