From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:49:33 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <sameer@c2.org
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
Message-ID: <m0u5QH8-00090aC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:06 PM 4/5/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 sameer@c2.org wrote:
>
>> 	What's the point here, or is Unicorn just having fun
>> lambasting Jim Bell?
>> 
>> 	My basic attitude, running an internet privacy provider, is if
>> Mr. Govt. wants my data, and gives me a court order (subpoena,
>> "compelled discovery", whatever), then I'll give it to 'em.
>> 	If my customers that they were looking for had any brains at
>> all, a court order, compelled discover, whatever, will not help
>> Mr. Govt. That's the cornerstone of my security model.
>> 
>> 	Or am I confused about what you are talking about here.
>
>Yours seems to be about the most aggressive policy a ISP provider can 
>take and expect to remain in business.

This is a classic defeatist attitude, the one that Unicorn specializes in.  
He wants us to believe that there is literally NOTHING that anyone can 
possibly do to solve the "government problem."

I contend that had he talked to Phillip Zimmermann in 1990 or so, he would 
have told Zimmermann that "It's illegal to write an encryption program using 
RSA, because it's patented!  You'll never get away with it!"

But history records that Zimmermann _did_, and he "got away with it."

What I'm advocating is that people do what Zimmermann did: Write programs 
that will extend the usages of encryption to thwart attempts to retrieve 
data by its owners, whether or not the data is on the owner's system.

>That is, resist by what legal means are available, but ultimately depend 
>on the user to secure his or her own data.

Notice that Unicorn never gives useful specific suggestions about which 
"legal means are available."


>Where I differ with Mr. Bell is that he seems to think the ISPs of the 
>world are going to rise and unite to quash the oppressive hand of big 
>government at their own expense in order to satisify some sense of 
>personal ethics or customer goodwill.

Cumulatively, they could do exactly this.  Spread among most ISP's, the cost 
per ISP could be quite low.  Augmented with my AsPol idea, the costs would 
be even lower.  What was that quote?  "A box of shells is cheaper than an 
appeal."

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com