From: Rich Burroughs <richieb@teleport.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 05:28:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: OS/2 encryption
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960421174602.0068fcfc@mail.teleport.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:53 AM 4/21/96, you wrote:
>In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960421035428.21453D-100000@polaris.mindport.net>, on
>04/21/96 at 03:55 AM,
>   Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> said:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Apr 1996 mirele@xmission.com wrote:
>
>>> I have received a lot of comment about my request for OS/2
>>> encryption...perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
>
>>[...]
>
>>> *That's* why I inquired about disk security.  Not because I'm trying to
>>> hide something from Scientology...but because I don't appreciate people
>>> messing around with something that I've worked very hard on.
>
>>Not to get too out of hand, but how is encryption going to prevent
>>deletions?
>
>Well, anything to slow them down.  It was reported to me that when Dennis
>Erlich was raided last year, they rendered his computer unbootable because
>of the deletions they had made.  As it is, I haven't been able to find an
>appropriate security utility beyond PGP (which I've been using for over a
>year anyway).  So this discussion is moot.
[snip]

I really don't understand this whole thread.  Deana wants an encryption
utility to keep her data from prying eyes.  Simple.  The cypherpunks list is
the last place I'd expect to see people question her judgment about it.

Encryption will prevent someone from reading Deana's email and other private
documents without a court ordering her to divulge her key.  Despite whatever
inference a court may draw from her encrypting data, it's a smart move,
IMHO, when you consider that the "Church" has raided 4 people's homes with
ex parte writs of seizure and hauled off their entire computer systems
(people who received letters from the "Church" not very different than the
one Deana got).  When the computers were seized they weren't taken to the
court -- they went straight to the offices of the "Church's" lawyers, where
paid experts executed extremely broad searches on the hard drives.

If you can picture your worst enemy poring through your hard drive, file by
file, you'll understand why something like secure drive or SFS would come in
handy.

Encryption may prevent deletions -- if I remember right, it was alleged that
the "Church" had selectively deleted files from one of the hard drives (I
think it was Arnie Lerma's).  If everything's encrypted, selective deletions
based on content would be impossible.  OTOH, Steve Fishman, author of the
famous Fishman Affidavit, alleges that people working for CoS came into his
house under false pretenses and deleted the contents of his entire c:\ drive.  

As for the free legal advice, Deana's very legal savvy (IMHO, based on my
time on a.r.s.), so I think we can spare it.  She's surely weighed the
consequences of what she's doing.


Rich

______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs  richieb@teleport.com  http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause