From: EVERHART@Arisia.GCE.Com
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 09:28:08 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Info War
Message-ID: <960720191512.94@Arisia.GCE.Com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


If the government should happen to be serious about wanting to prevent
some possible info war scenarios, one might expect a number of things
to be seen.

* I'd expect that there would be at least some statements about the
unwisdom of standardizing on MS operating systems or unix versions
which have little or no security, building an infrastructure with security
holes one can drive a truck through.

* I'd also expect that the anti-crypto campaign to be at least scaled WAY
down, so as to encourage more open use of crypto components in security
solutions. (Crypto won't help if your OS comes with a backdoor that allows
anyone on the Internet to get r/w access to your disks...this has been
reported to me in all Microsoft OSs they currently have, though with NT
it's under certain common but not completely ubiquitous circumstances. The
others are wide WIDE open. Other bugs doubtless exist.

* I'd expect some comments on the automatic running of downloaded images
and how to secure them. Java? Reported at Princeton to be totally 
unsecurable....no models exist. I believe you can run the thing securely,
but by having some security in its environment., I'd expect a lot more
about what is needed, and where it can be found, encouraging development
of such features.

If on the other hand this is a ploy to justify violating people's privacy
and in fact is not concerned with improving our posture, I would expect
more Clipper chips, etc., and nothing seriously beneficial. (I consider
that freedom of speech & the press means that I can choose not only what
to say, but how to say it. If I use a language (crypto) that is hard
for some not spoken to to understand, I regard this as an essential part
of the freedom. Last I looked, this is still written.

(BTW, if you think that the Supreme Court is supposed to be the
arbiter of constitutionality, your reading of Marbury vs. Madison
is seriously flawed. Congress and the President (& other federal
employees) take an oath of office and are supposed to be deciding
that what they do is Constitutional before doing it. Alas that
they generally don't take this seriously...)

We'll see what actually happens. I'd like to hope for the real effort
to avoid problems. I fear we will get the bogus one, suitable for control
freaks but not useful ultimately in dealing with the threats.

Glenn Everhart