From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:29:36 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [SCARE]:  "If you only knew what we know..."
Message-ID: <199605232353.QAA19079@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:07 PM 5/23/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>"If you only knew what we know..."
>
>("...you wouldn't support encryption, you wouldn't push for privacy
>legislation, you would order all citizen-units to have tatooed ID numbers
>on their arms...")
>
>Though I normally avoid "Wired," I did pick up the latest issue to skim
>through. A couple of good things, actually, including a nice summary of the
>state of crypto laws, etc. (I don't recall the author, as I didn't buy the
>issue.)
>
>A great discussion of the Deepest and Darket Secret in Washington, the
>special "If you only knew what we know..." briefing given to legislators,
>staffers, etc. to convince them of the Evils of Cryptography.


There is a clue here.  If that briefing is so effective, why don't they give 
it to the entire country?

We "all" know (at least around CP) of a number of sorta-bad things that 
might occur as a consequence of allowing good cryptography.  (none of which, 
on balance, even come close to justifying banning or restricting good 
crypto, or justify GAK, etc.)   However, very few of them require more than 
a little imagination to invent on our own, and given communication most of 
them will be thought of and disseminated without being revealed by the 
government.  So it's a bit difficult to imagine why they'd avoid discussing 
those issues in public.

The clue, I think, is that this briefing is given to "legislators, staffers, 
etc".  Presumably, whatever arguments they use in this briefing are quite
selective and tailored to appeal to government types.  They're telling these 
people of a argument against good encryption that works for government-types 
but NOT ordinary civilians.  It isn't that they don't want the average 
civilian to know of these arguments, they simply don't want the populace to 
know what subset of these consequences the government is really concerned about.

Okay, what kind of thing would terrify government-types but not most civilians?  

>Paraphrasing the "Wired" item, "No person who has ever received "The
>Briefing" has ever again argued forcefully for the rights of citizens to
>use strong cryptography."
>I surmise that either Sen. Burns has not yet been given The Briefing, or he
>is for some reason more resistant than most other burrowcrats to the scare
>tactics used in The Briefing.
>I sure would like to know what's in this briefing.
>--Tim May

It probably starts like this:   "See, there's this guy named Jim Bell...."  B^)

Seriously, though, I can't see how it could be anything other than the 
typical Crypto-Anarchy-type scenarios, but presented as if they are a Bad 
Thing as opposed to being a Good Thing.  This would fit all the criteria:  
They appear to be extremely bad from the standpoint of the government-types, 
are not particularly convincing to the citizens, and the government wouldn't 
want the public to know what they're most concerned with.  It might start'em thinking.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com