From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 08:41:15 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RANT: cypherpunks do NSA's job for them!!
In-Reply-To: <ad2bf34e04021004d2fa@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199601252144.NAA27728@netcom22.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



TCM wrote a long post about how the ITAR tends to prevent just
about any kind of crypto software and hardware development, and
that even importing crypto into the U.S. is likely to be outlawed
if not already illegal.

but I think this whole line of complex thinking and pontificating
is really yucky, and it embarrasses and exasperates me to see 
it here of all places, and from TCM of all people. 

it really bugs me how much cypherpunks try to point out the "gotchas" in all
the laws with crypto. when we become *experts* on these laws, and
tell people why they prevent them from doing various things, we
are actually *supporting* them.

that is the ultimate test of legitimacy: what do you do when you
hear someone wants to do something that would seem to "break a law"?

when you tell them that "what you are doing breaks the law", you are
implicitly revealing that *you*support*that*law*.

the way to *not*support*a*law* is *not* to play these games. not to
second guess what the NSA is doing, how they would react to some
situation, etc.  not to point out what you think they would do if
someone violated their list of "naughty no-nos"

the NSA benefits from the *perceived* straightjacket. the NSA succeeds
by creating a *perception* of restriction, regardless of enforcement.
you *perpetuate* this perception by keeping a handy list of all the
ways that crypto software and hardware development is *impossible* and
repeatedly rebroadcasting it to your friends and public forums like this.

the NSA *loses* through public confrontation, which focuses the
spotlight on the atrociousness of their agenda.

isn't this list the first place that people should say and emphasize,
THE LAWS ARE NOT EXACT. THERE IS ROOM FOR MANEUVERING. PEOPLE SHOULD
CHALLENGE THEM IN COURT.

we are *not* breaking the law or encouraging breaking the law in saying
this. we are *challenging* the law. we are
saying, "no matter what law is passed, the ultimate test of legitimacy
of any law is whether it is supported by our judicial system. many
NSA 'laws' have *never* been tested, and therefore they are *all* suspect!!
we *encourage* people to challenge them, and do a noble service for our country
in clarifying what the laws *really* are!!"

do you think these ITAR laws are legitimate, or not? if they are *not*,
then why do you *treat*them*as*such????

the ridiculous debate about whether the 4 line perl code was illegal 
or legal was PLAYING INTO THE HANDS OF THE NSA.   the NSA *wants* people
to think twice every time they write a modulo function, and all the
endless legal pontificating on this list is a gift from heaven to them.

what *really* exasperates me is TCM saying that "even importing code
is likely to be illegal, because if it is legal now it is likely to
be outlawed". well, WHO SAYS?? this is a *beautiful* example of a place
where some REAL CYPHERPUNKS WITH SOME BALLS could challenge the 
government, and possibly get the support of some strong allies (EFF,
business interested in crypto such as Netscape, Microsoft, Lotus, etc)
if they were challenged in court.  

this is a *perfect* opportunity
for someone to import the crypto, and get it into the market-- don't
you see that the government would then be put at a *disadvantage*
*even*if* they decided they were against it and tried to introduce bills-- 
it would get the publicity
of newspapers and the focus of people watching congress do something
that has been done in the shadows by the NSA for so long (and one of
the main reasons they have gotten away with it).  imagine the brilliant
"photo opportunity" of customs agents trying to stop someone at
an airport because of them taking in computer disks!!!

there is a line of thinking here that goes, "keep your head down, and
don't challenge anything that even *might* be illegal". but I tell you
that is NOT how odious laws are removed. that is exactly how they
are PERPETUATED. we *win* through major public confrontation over
crypto issues. are we *ashamed* because we want strong crypto? is
it something to *hide*??

what TCM's whole essay epitomizes is the *exact*chilling*effect* that the NSA
is aiming for. all this debate about what the current laws actually allow
*begs*the*point* and does not support our agenda for the spread of
crypto, and in fact is detrimental to it.
instead, we need to broadcast to the world the message
"its a gray area, and we cypherpunks are *dying* for 
someone to challenge this in court, we would actually lend them our 
support and rally around them as we did with PRZ".

ok, now someone is going to say, OK wiseguy, why don't YOU do it. that
is not my point. my point is that we merely need to get the message that
even though many cpunks are spineless sheep who don't have the balls 
to challenge the laws themselves, or even suggest this in public,
instead endlessly yammering about what 
is 100% kosher and what isn't (you don't have to say that part (g), ...

"we would support someone who challenges these laws!!!"

the idea that MS signing a cryptographic package from outside this country
constitutes EXPORT OF AN ALGORITHM is OUTRAGEOUS. of course you agree with
me, but the way to demonstrate you agree is to not put up with it. DEFY
any bogus law that you think is bogus!! the test of the legitimacy of
a law is our *court*system*, not what government bureacrats tell you to
do!! and every day that someone listens to a government bureacrat, and
not *what*a*court*thinks*, a little bit of our precious freedom is eroded.

what scares and infuriates me is that by the NSA's standards,
the cypherpunks turn out to me some of the most "law abiding" 
citizens regarding crypto than anyone else in the entire country...!!!

maybe TCM, who in this case imho is part of the PROBLEM and not part of
the SOLUTION, and an example of how our own behavior is sabotaging our
key goals, will think twice when he writes another *sskissing,
tedious "what the NSA thinks about [x]" post.

this ends my semi-periodic rant-of-the-moment. we return you to your
regular listless dialogue.