From: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:06:17 +0800
To: Raph Levien <raph@c2.org>
Subject: Re: Vladimir: put up or shut up
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960129162111.27262B-100000@infinity.c2.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD.3.91.960130075633.25262A-100000@usr6.primenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Raph Levien wrote:

> Most of the recent cypherpunks traffic from Vladimir has been a 
> reiteration of the position that discussing ITAR is bad because it 
> discourages cypherpunks from releasing good crypto software.
>
	Vladimir made my kill file for good reason
 
> Well, here's one cypherpunks who recently released some software, and
> futhermore did so making significant (some might say extreme) concessions
> to the ITAR rules. I made the software available only on an 
> export-restricted Web server, and asked explicitly several times for it 
> not to be exported. If my timezone math works out right, it took about 
> half an hour for it to be available on utopia. The ITAR did _nothing_ to 
> stop, or even slow down, the reease of my software.
>
	the point is: YOU did exactly as required by ITAR. you had 
    nothing to do with its export.

	the point the government is missing is the exact same point
    the Chinese government failed to understand with Tiannamen (?) square:
    the greater the power to communicate, the less government objectives
    of suppressing information are enforceable.

	once the Russians took the total clamp off the media it was all 
    over --degeneration into anarchy, albeit, obviously somewhat less than 
    idealistic or self-policed (non-utopian).

	I believe our goal is to provide tools for the protection of 
    individual liberties (Bill of Rights, etc) in the face of both the
    governments increasing police state mentality and the enormous
    increase in technology enabling the state to abuse its power to 
    retain control.

	maybe even look at our position as electronic counter-measures!
 
	I look at debating ITAR as futile --the powers that be never
    will give up power that maintains their power. Our task is to 
    help render their supposed power ineffectual.

> Why is it, then, that we still don't have usable strong crypto tools?  I'd
> say the reason is complex, much more so than could be explained by a
> simple conspiracy theory or even too much discussion of ITAR. The main
> reason is that it is very damned hard to write good crypto-enabled
> applications.  Trust me, I know. I have done the best I could with the
> software I released, but I'm still quite frustrated with its limitations,
> especially with respect to nontechnical users. 
>
	for Joe SixPack to demand crypto tools, they must be virtually
    automatic, including protecting the user from his own ignorance.

	for instance: it took me less than a few minutes to compile and 
    install MixMaster.  OK, I've been involved in this stuff for 30+
    years, but MixMaster went together without a ripple faster than most. 
    MM is a great product for unix, or text-based usage; write it in
    emacs and send it one  --painless.

	why is MM usage not universal? 1) unawareness, 2) it takes a 
    Windoz GUI product for Joe SixPack  (please do an OS/2 version
    version first as I refuse to run Billy's toys (this is NOT a topic
    for discussion).  You need the functions of MM built into all
    the real world's sexy mail programs; and maybe everyone would think
    think twice about filling dejanews.com with embarrassing files.

	meanwhile, while we wait for the ultimate GUI --how about
    hacking it into Pine?
 
> Ultimately, to create really good crypto-enabled applications, it's going 
> to take money. And there's where ITAR is most effective. If the powers 
> that be disapprove of your software, then there goes your foreign market. 
> There go your government sales. There go those "strategic alliances" with 
> the other companies in the market, because the pressure can be applied 
> transitively too. ITAR is actually only a small part of the process.
>
	for example: IBM/Notes. any large company, or startup for that
    matter can not afford to risk the government market. guess that
    follows one of my basic rules: intimidation is just another form
    communication.
 
> Still, free software has a lot of vitality left in it. It's still strong 
> at blazing new trails in software design. Where it's weak (and this is 
> what really counts now), is being usable, easy to learn, and easy to 
> install. I think if we explicitly work towards these goals, there's hope 
> for great free crypto-enabled applications. Hell, PGP came pretty close, 
> and it's saddled with all kinds of lousy design decisions.
> 
	free software really is all that remains as a weapon against 
    government intimidation. the net is virtually transparent: witness
    tcm's change in his "speedbump" sig.

	If we wish to scream about our freedoms, putting out _good_,
    free software is the opening bid, and each time the opposition 
    raises the ante (cracks a cypher methodology), raise 'em one back.
   
> But back to Vladimir: instead of whining at us about how our fear of the
> law is hurting the acievement of our goals, why don't _you_ write that
> killer crypto-app and distribute it to the world? Who's stopping you? 
> 
	well, Vladimir --do you have it or do you not?

> Raph
> 

__________________________________________________________________________
    go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say:
      yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off.
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

    To be a ruler of men, you need at least 12 inches....
    There is no safety this side of the grave.  Never was; never will be.